Comment author: VoiceOfRa 05 October 2015 02:44:10AM -2 points [-]

For your first premise to be uncontroversial around here, I think you need to either take it as applying only to the form of the laws of physics and not to initial conditions, arbitrary constants, etc. (in which case you can't identify "this universe" and still have it be of low complexity)

Doesn't that undermine the premise of the whole "a godless universe has low Kolmogorov complexity" argument that you're trying to make?

adopt something like Tegmark's MUH that amounts to running every version of the universe (all boundary conditions, all values for the constants, etc.) in parallel (in which case what gets taken over by a superintelligent AI is no longer the whole thing but a possibly-tiny part, and specifying that part costs a lot of complexity).

Well, all the universes that support can life are likely wind up taken over by AGI's.

unless you are depending on it taking over the whole universe so that you can just point at the whole caboodle and say "that thing" -- but then presumably its agent-detection facilities are a tiny part of the whole (not necessarily a spatially localized part, of course), and singling those out so you can say "agents are things that that identifies as agents" again has a large complexity cost from locating them.

But, the AGI can. Agentiness is going to be a very important concept for it. Thus it's likely to have a short referent to it.

Comment author: Transfuturist 05 October 2015 04:18:39AM *  2 points [-]

Doesn't that undermine the premise of the whole "a godless universe has low Kolmogorov complexity" argument that you're trying to make?

Again, there is a difference between the complexity of the dynamics defining state transitions, and the complexity of the states themselves.

But, the AGI can. Agentiness is going to be a very important concept for it. Thus it's likely to have a short referent to it.

What do you mean by "short referent?" Yes, it will likely be an often-used concept, so the internal symbol signifying the concept is likely to be short, but that says absolutely nothing about the complexity of the concept itself. If you want to say that "agentiness" is a K-simple concept, perhaps you should demonstrate that by explicating a precise computational definition for an agent detector, and show that it doesn't fail on any conceivable edge-cases.

Saying that it's important doesn't mean it's simple. "For an AGI to be successful it is going to have to be good at reducing entropy globally. Thus reducing entropy globally must have low Kolmogorov complexity."

Comment author: VoiceOfRa 04 October 2015 03:03:35AM -2 points [-]

Perhaps it would; your consistent strategy of downvoting everyone who disagrees with you

No, but I do downvote people who appear to be completely mind-killed.

Identifying game-like interactions is also (so far as I can tell) a problem no one has any inkling how to solve, especially if we don't have the prior ability to identify the agents.

Rather, identifying agents using algorithms with reasonable running time is a hard problem.

Also, consider the following relatively uncontroversial beliefs around here:

1) The universe has low Kolmogorov complexity.

2) An AGI is likely to be developed and when it does it'll take over the universe.

Now let's consider some implications of these beliefs:

3) An AGI has low Kolmogorov complexity since it can be specified as "run this low Kolmogorov complexity universe for a sufficiently long period of time".

Also the AGI to be successful is going to have to be good at detecting agents so it can dedicated sufficient resources to defeating/subverting them. Thus detecting agents must have low Kolmogorov complexity.

Comment author: Transfuturist 04 October 2015 05:51:34AM *  1 point [-]

An AGI has low Kolmogorov complexity since it can be specified as "run this low Kolmogorov complexity universe for a sufficiently long period of time".

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of complexity. The laws of physics are simple, but the configurations of the universe that runs on it can be incredibly complex. The amount of information needed to specify the configuration of any single cubic centimeter of space is literally unfathomable to human minds. Running a simulation of the universe until intelligences develop inside of it is not the same as specifying those intelligences, or intelligence in general.

Also the AGI to be successful is going to have to be good at detecting agents so it can dedicated sufficient resources to defeating/subverting them. Thus detecting agents must have low Kolmogorov complexity.

The convenience of some hypothetical property of intelligence does not act as a proof of that property. Please note that we are in a highly specific environment, where humans are the only sapients around, and animals are the only immediately recognizable agents. There are sci-fi stories about your "necessary" condition being exactly false; where humans do not recognize some intelligence because it is not structured in a way that humans are capable of recognizing.

Comment author: tut 02 October 2015 11:10:18AM *  4 points [-]

No, but it does mean that if you want to argue that humans exist you must provide strong positive evidence, perhaps telling us an address where we can meet a real live human ;)

Comment author: Transfuturist 04 October 2015 05:24:54AM 2 points [-]

I could stand to meet a real-life human. I've heard they exist, but I've had such a hard time finding one!

Comment author: [deleted] 03 October 2015 05:07:06PM 1 point [-]

The basic theistic hypothesis is a description of an omnipotent, omniscient being; together with the probable aims and suspected intentions of such a being. The laws of physics would then derive from this.

"Omnipotent", "omniscient", and "being" are packing a whole shit-ton of complexity, especially "being". They're definitely packing more than a model of particle physics, since we know that all known "beings" are implemented on top of particle physics.

Comment author: Transfuturist 04 October 2015 05:18:43AM *  1 point [-]

I don't think mind designs are dependent on their underlying physics. The physics is a substrate, and as long as it provides general computation, intelligence would be achievable in a configuration of that physics. The specifics of those designs may depend on how those worlds function, like how jellyfish-like minds may be different from bird-like minds, but not the common elements of induction, analysis of inputs, and selection of outputs. That would mean the simplest a priori mind would have to be computed by the simplest provision of general computation, however. An infinitely divine Turing Machine, if you will.

That doesn't mean a mind is more basic than physics, though. That's an entirely separate issue. I haven't ever seen a coherent model of God in the first place, so I couldn't begin to judge the complexity of its unproposed existence. If God is a mind, then what substrate does it rest on?

Comment author: polymathwannabe 17 August 2015 05:32:24PM 2 points [-]

An interesting take on ethics.

Comment author: Transfuturist 18 August 2015 01:34:54AM *  1 point [-]

I especially like the question "Is it ethical to steal truffle mushrooms and champagne to feed your family?" That's an intuitive concept fairly voiced. Calculating the damage to the trolley is somewhat ridiculous, however.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 August 2015 08:16:09PM 1 point [-]

de facto you are not

If you're claiming de facto, I would like to see some evidence :-P

Comment author: Transfuturist 17 August 2015 10:22:25PM 0 points [-]

I believe in this instance he was reasoning alethically. De facto you are not necessarily correct.

Comment author: Lumifer 16 August 2015 12:21:36AM *  1 point [-]

one serving of Soylent 1.5 can expose a consumer...

Can..? Not "does"?

Is there any actual data (anyone has links to the laboratory tests or, at least, the court filing)? Press releases do not count.

Comment author: Transfuturist 16 August 2015 01:40:52AM 1 point [-]

I'm not claiming this is conclusive evidence of danger; I'm just concerned.

Comment author: [deleted] 16 August 2015 12:57:08AM 14 points [-]
Comment author: Transfuturist 16 August 2015 01:37:05AM *  0 points [-]

Thanks. I only saw this press release and I was concerned that there might be danger.

Soylent has been found to contain lead (12-25x) and cadmium (≥4x) in greater concentrations than California's 'safe harbor' levels

9 Transfuturist 15 August 2015 10:45PM

Press Release

Edit: Soylent's Reply, provided by Trevor_Blake

OAKLAND, Calif., Aug. 13, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As You Sow, a non-profit environmental-health watchdog, today filed a notice of intent to bring legal action against Soylent, a "meal replacement" powder recently featured in New York Times and Forbes stories reporting that workers in Silicon Valley are drinking their meals, eliminating the need to eat food. The 60-day notice alleges violation of California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act for failure to provide sufficient warning to consumers of lead and cadmium levels in the Soylent 1.5 product.

Test results commissioned by As You Sow, conducted by an independent laboratory, show that one serving of Soylent 1.5 can expose a consumer to a concentration of lead that is 12 to 25 times above California's Safe Harbor level for reproductive health, and a concentration of cadmium that is at least 4 times greater than the Safe Harbor level for cadmium. Two separate samples of Soylent 1.5 were tested.

According to the Soylent website, Soylent 1.5 is "designed for use as a staple meal by all adults." The startup recently raised $20 million in funding led by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

"Nobody expects heavy metals in their meals," said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow. "These heavy metals accumulate in the body over time and, since Soylent is marketed as a meal replacement, users may be chronically exposed to lead and cadmium concentrations that exceed California's safe harbor level (for reproductive harm). With stories about Silicon Valley coders sometimes eating three servings a day, this is of very high concern to the health of these tech workers."

Lead exposure is a significant public health issue and is associated with neurological impairment, such as learning disabilities and lower IQ, even at low levels. Chronic exposure to cadmium has been linked to kidney, liver, and bone damage in humans.

Since 1992, As You Sow has been a leading enforcer of California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, with enforcement actions resulting in removal of lead from children's jewelry, formaldehyde from portable classrooms, and lead from baby powder.

Comment author: Transfuturist 03 July 2015 08:08:32AM 1 point [-]

As an example of number 10, consider the Optimalverse. The friendliest death of self-determination I ever did see.

Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure of the point of this post, considering you're posting a reply to news articles on a forum filled with people who understand the mistakes they made in the first place. Perhaps as a repository of rebuttals to common misconceptions posited in the future?

View more: Prev | Next