AIkonoklazt

I stated its impossibility multiple times:

I know there are many of us who are waiting for the LLM hype cycle to blow over so the AI field can finally move forward again. Yes, LLMs are "empty calories" as far as the substance of their mechanisms are concerned. I see AGI and AI consciousness as two completely separate topics, because the "AI" in "AGI" is a technical denotation with a performative meaning. While conscious machines are impossible, AGI to me as inevitable; It's just a matter of getting all the behaviors in. If behaviors is all people look for, then sooner or later they're just going to get those behaviors. Some people equate behaviors with consciousness, and that's bad. It also bothers me that basically all the literature out there frames the problem as a problem with understanding minds, instead of understanding what a machine fundamentally is and does (...hello? We're building a machine, right? These things don't build themselves you know...) p.s. Someone please do something about Anthis and his crackpot "Institute" https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/3914567-we-need-an-ai-rights-movement/

Thanks for mentioning gauge invariance. Again I agree we can't measure the wave. I'm not going to pretend to know all that much in this subject, but attributing that aforementioned big chunk of the wave disappearing to a "collapse" just feels to me like a case of the tail wagging the dog; The "collapsing" to me is just a description of what's seen (because that's the only thing that could be seen) instead of something "being collapsed."

Yes, you asked me "what's the point" and that was all I could say to it. Plenty of scientists came up with non-verifiable theories because they're about non-verifiable things that's beyond human reach. (One thing being black holes being "dark matter stars" and another being white holes are results of dimensional collisions- Forgot who coughed up that one, maybe Tegmark)

We measure things we can measure. Just because there are things outside of measurement doesn't make the measurement pointless.

If, as I've mentioned earlier, we can do the absolute impossible and measure all values of this wave instead of one, then it's not going to be a dot. How? You can't. It's impossible. (Can we end up wit a cat that's both dead and alive? Not really. That's the limitation of a cat and the rig that's supposed to kill it.)

You can only get a dot if you use a detector screen. That's all you could get. "What other thing could we even use to detect?" Nothing, I suppose. This "collapse," is a limitation.

If we could actually measure all the values (of course, not possible) then there is no collapse. Thus my previous answer of "it's because of the limitation of the measurement," or the limitation of the measuring device, or ultimately just the limitation of the interaction between the measuring device and the "wave" being measured.

(Think I spoke too soon when I said I will only need to block one person...) Got handed multiple papers to read by contacts. Two of them here: 1. "Inruption theory" of consciousness (given to me in response to me mentioning underdetermination. The theory proposes making use of increasing and decreasing amount of underdetermination detected in future experiments) https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/5/748 My summary conclusion is that the theory is useful for advancing the science. It does, however, admit that it still doesn't provide a specific modeling of the mechanism. This fits George E. P. Box's aphorism "All models are wrong, some are useful." The paper's author happens to be in the thread, and agreed. 2. A about meaning and whether current LLMs are capable of understanding the meaning of words and language https://www.academia.edu/86274770/Dumb_Meaning_Machine_Learning_and_Artificial_Semantics The paper is very well written in its exposition of the grounding problem, which makes some of the same point I did in my article. However... I completely disagree with the solution that's being presented, namely: a. It accepts subsymbolic/connectionist systems as "not programmed" when in fact they are STILL programmed (e.g. neural nets have algorithms which of course are programmed and thus still not actually learning (this is basically a major quibble of mine, and not actually his "solution" or anything as much as the treatment of the issue, but thought I'd mention) b. It seeks to branch out the meaning of the term "meaning" itself which is a complete no-no, especially when the author already mentioned the warning that were given by experts regarding terms like "intelligence". Okay, noting the effects of correspondence is fine, but please please PLEASE don't call it "meaning." It's the whole "intelligence" and "learning" obfuscation disasters all over again, with most people just misinterpreting those technical terms (neglecting or flat out ignorant of their technical meanings) when mixed with venacular usage. If anyone has a paper they want to refer me to in support of whatever point they want to make, feel free to give me a link but please state what particular point(s) I'm supposed to take from it.

When you measure, you could only measure one state. The wave is multiple simultaneous states. This limitation in measurement is what "collapses" it.

He might have been trying to explain how color is all in our heads: https://www.extremetech.com/archive/49028-color-is-subjective A practical example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress *consciousness There are pigments in nature but no sensation of color "out there," if that's what you were trying to say...

I don't think Hamas cares about Palestinians. In other news, Congressional stupidity continues unabated: https://www.npr.org/2023/11/03/1210386678/house-approves-military-aid-israel It's partisan, of course. Democrats want Ukraine funding, so nopers- We'll take the money and shove it to Israel (seriously? IDF needs the funding because they're short?) These congresscritters really have their priorities straight. There isn't enough political will to see the Ukrainian war to the end, so Russia will probably prevail. After Ukraine, Moldova is next. After that, who the ____ knows.

I'm just returning a small portion of the snarkiness and bitchiness that you sent my way in the artificial consciousness thread. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You had nothing better to do in that thread but make statements like "He is a waste of time" because well, you had nothing to stand on. Better look in the mirror before throwing rocks. That said, what you typed was a category mistake, because the statement I made was not from the societal angle; I was being consistent throughout. You're mixing personal action with societal evaluation. Nah, I'm not your ally. I have no choice but to not be!

...but wait, I didn't create the issue. I have no choice! See this thread:

But "we" don't make mistakes. Mistakes involve the conception that a choice was made, but there's no such thing as choice. "We" have no choice but to do what "we" do, and at this moment it happens to be punishing instead of rehabilitating.

It must be from the notification for new content in a followed thread. I see the regular email titled "Your Science Forums digest" and then it has this partial message from the person I blocked. I guess if I want to still monitor a thread with a blocked person, I'd have to set up an email filter (I already did. I don't think I'll end up blocking anyone else, so this one extra filter is fine I guess.)

Alas, I can't put a filter in my newsfeeds that are specific to that one person (except maybe the Google app) ...Heck I wish I have his specific category of "genius" (e.g. having a father who owns an emerald mine) (okay, maybe not any mine, but at least some immense luck) Even if the population level eventually falls after all of us are long gone, encouraging births smells to me like a disguised form of nativism. I don't see how emigration couldn't handily resolve any perceived issues involving any sort of negative population growth.

Why am I still getting email notifications from someone I blocked? Now I'll have setup email rule just to block email notifications coming from this one individual. I've seen his interactions with others in other threads and they're awful too.

Meanwhile you've got this guy who wants everyone to pop out more people https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-on-demographics-population-ageing-2021-12?op=1

The only situation I could think of right now is if the dialectic results in the construction and/or refinement of a practical theory. That said, the hidden variables aren't really "resolved;" They're just pushed further down the road while more details and findings are revealed in the meantime.

Underdetermination isn't really freedom but unknown causes. It points to unaccounted-for elements in a model.

I see, it's that thread. let me try to tag myself... @AIkonoklazt well, it works for me. Actually, I think I know. the second letter in my handle is "i" and not "L". AI iconoclast, An iconoclast regarding AI, har-har.

Resource owners isn't looking down as much as doing things because they can, or slightly more specifically, because they can maximize their returns that much more. If they don't squeeze as hard as they could, they're leaving some unsqueezed blood on the table. it's a matter of converting human resource into some other resource they can spend or turn into gold bars or whatever. As for serfs? Tough luck, serfs rent means of production (office space, office equipment, factories, etc etc) and pay the difference between the value they produce and what trickles down to them (pay and benefits) as rent.

Nopers, didn't see it. Link?