Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

anotherblackhat comments on GAZP vs. GLUT - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 April 2008 01:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (166)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: anotherblackhat 03 March 2012 04:28:31PM *  2 points [-]

Not Conscious? I'd say the GLUT was not only conscious, it has god like powers. It can solve NP hard problems in one look up. It can prove anything in under a second.

It's easy for a human to confuse epsilon for zero. In most cases this would be a useful simplification, but a GLUT can take that simplification and use it against you. A look up table doesn't warp space and time? Well, actually it does, it's just that a normal one would warp it by an insignificant amount. We wouldn't normally think of a look up table as threatening a death star, but even a "small" GLUT of 10^500 entries has enough mass energy to destroy a death star from 10 billion light year away. Just by warping space and time!

Most arguments that involve a GLUT go something like this;
A GLUT is just a look up table and a look up table is obviously not ...
It's anything but obvious. A book is not conscious? How do you know? Maybe consciousness isn't a binary property, maybe we've just arbitrarily set a threshold, above that amount we call it conscious. A GLUT would have that in spades. Or maybe not. How can you be 100% confident that a look up table has zero consciousness when you don't even know for sure what consciousness is?

Comment author: thomblake 16 May 2012 08:49:06PM 1 point [-]

It can prove anything in under a second.

I may have missed the part where this is specified, but I imagine reading the GLUT would actually take longer than solving most problems, since it's unimaginably large.