Genady

Will torturing AI be a crime?

So, I made a mistake "eliminating" D = 9. No wonder I don't remember how I did that...

I thought that this is what you mean. It is a common effect for sure, but it is also individual. In my case and in case of several people I know, it does not work, by choice.

I've eliminated the other possibility, D = 9, but I don't remember at the moment how I did it.

Trying to find out how the computer is programming me.

Are you sure it has an answer?

SFn?

I speculate that being smarter than us, AGI will invent a way around any firewall we can come up with.

We do notice it. See here (Gravity of Earth - Wikipedia😞

D = 0 F = 1 T > 5 R > T Not too many possibilities left to check manually.

Yes, there is. There are many ways to lose control, I think.

Yes. v2 = 1 - m2/M2 M - initial mass m - final mass v - final speed, in units of c.

I don't think you need an equation for this. If you convert the entire mass to something massless, like e.g., light, then that something moves with the speed of light. Regardless of the initial mass.

Ah, I didn't realize that you refer to that post... No, the barrier is independent of the frame. In any frame, the faster you move the more difficult it is to add speed.

Alright, this is clear. What is the question?

If a neutrino moves at 0.99c in lab frame and we move in opposite direction at 0.01c in lab frame, then we move at 0.9902c in neutrino frame.

Yes, of course we are.

What do you mean?

It is quite possible that there were on this planet, more intelligent and less aggressive Homo species, but they went extinct, perhaps with our help. Then we are not.

We build devices that function well without being enclosed in "envelopes." I assume that simple forms of life could evolve to be like that as well.

I've looked through the paper. It appears that the "space-river model" is not, and it does not intend to be an interpretation of GR. It rather It applies only to a limited set of reference frames / observers, in a limited set of space-time geometries, e.g.,

Yes, this is two graphs shown together. One is in the frame of the falling observer. In this graph, "time" is the falling observer's proper time: The falling observer reaches the horizon and the singularity in a finite time. The other is in the frame of the distant observer. In this graph, "time" is the Schwartzschild time of that observer: In this frame, the falling observer never reaches the horizon.

To the contrary, it will be rather harder.

The chart below illustrates what happens in two inertial frames as one falls and the other remains far away. Time, in units of the BH mass M, shown on the horizontal axis. Distance from the BH singularity, also in units of the BH mass, shown on the vertical axis. r = 2M (r/M = 2) is the event horizon, shown as a dashed line. The falling observer starts at the distance r = 6M, accelerates and falls through the event horizon and into the singularity in about t = 15.3M, in his own frame. In the stationary observer's frame, OTOH, the falling one accelerates, albeit more slowly, until about t = 20M, then decelerates, slows down to zero asymptotically, and never crosses the horizon.

Adaptation is not a goal of Darwinian evolution, but one of effects among other effects such as diversification and extinction. Environmental changes are only one of the factors affecting evolution. Evolution happens without environmental changes as well. IMO, it is incorrect to measure efficiency of evolution by time of adaptation to environmental changes. In fact, there is a strong argument that this ability would rather stagnate than accelerate evolution. This is fine. Also, it appears to go in an OT direction. Let's return to your topic then .