At least Penrose himself has an excuse for this: he's actually intellectually honest and came to this from a mathematics first purely theoretical perspective - he might have been deluded by others' trashy science, but he didn't go on to delude others.
It's funny that while it's great to also keep this perspective open as an interesting theoretical avenue, and Penrose is worth appreciating as a very original thinker... all the "evidence" for quantum consciousness theories is probably pure junk sci =)
Yeah I'm a third into Penrose's book right now but I don't buy the argument. However I can see where he's coming from and he presents everything objectively, opinions are clearly highlighted as such.
Last time I cared how much RAM any phone had, iOS or Android, I was working at Augmentra on the ViewRanger app, and we were still supporting older devices with only 256 MB.
That was… *checks CV*… I left in April 2015.
I think RAM is like roads: usage expands to fill available infrastructure/storage.
That an iPhone today has as much RAM as the still-functioning Mid-2013 MacBook Air sitting in a drawer behind me is surprising when compared to the 250-fold growth from my Commodore 64 to my (default) Performa 5200… but it doesn't seem to have actually harmed anything I care about.
I was basically always slowed down by RAM on Android - prob bc I switch between lots of very badly coded apps... so even on desktop I've grown to see RAM as "insurance against badly written code" as in "I'll still be able to run that memory leaky crapware and get what I need done" or in "I'll just spin up a VM for that crap that only runs on that other OS"...
Swimming in badly written SPAs and cordova/whatever hybrid apps is seriously helped by eg 12GB of RAM on a mobile :)
you can also translate "being useless" as "they having no reason to manipulate me into slaving as a cog in their machine/society/whatever"... I'd say uselessness should be our highest aspiration, when people higher up have no need to constantly brainwash you and social condition you into being just another cog in the machine you get true freedom.
I would rather be a cog that produces economic value, and therefore is entitled to part of it, than literally useless, because then my bargaining position is going to be quite limited. My freedom is larger in the former scenario in fact.
The true freedom of living under a bridge because you have no income? The tech bros are not coming to save humanity from the toil of labor. There will not be a post-scarcity society where everyone's basic needs will be met in a capitalist regime. You will have to produce to keep the beast running. I'm sure the tens of millions of people displaced will be able to learn more technical roles or quietly starve to death living under a bridge somewhere. Billionaires, corporations and their shareholders need to get richer!
We live in a capitalist society: workers produce wealth and capitalists control wealth. The day AI allow capitalists to produce wealth without workers is the day workers become useless. Of course one could imagine that AI allows to replace capitalism by something else, but for the moment that's not the way society is going too (more the reverse)
In what fairlyland do you live in that the AGI invented, created, owned, run, etc by the ownership class poses any threat to said ownership class? AI is absolutely not our Ally
this is cool, but try C (modern, C99) instead: all I see in this C++ version is obsfucation and confusingly named things...
(sure, for an "industrial strength" version C++'s features are worth the cost, but for learning/education I never saw the appeal of classes and objects and smart pointers and stuff)
Yes? ...this was the original dream of non-national cyberspace and we almost had a hope at getting it. Then the second chance with web3 but this was also spoiled by people getting too greedy and too nasty too fast.
A parallel anonymous-and-free-for-all-but-with-payments-included, smth. like Tor-but-powered-by-IPFSv9-and-Etherv7, will probably emerge in a couple decades done right after a couple failed iterations. Some techs need hardware to catch up to be cheap enough, and only after a few failed attempts they manage to grow a trend... and it will probably will last until it's used to finance a proper starting of WW3 and by then banning it will be too late.
Anyway, we'll enjoy the hell out of ourselves on the new patreons-but-for-snuff-p03n, so it will all have been worth it :)
> Then the second chance with web3 but this was also spoiled by people getting too greedy and too nasty too fast.
Maybe the laws & regulations you complain about are actually necessary because otherwise people will keep being greedy & nasty and eventually outnumber honest people?
Besides the missed irony, I mean that we need to have and we'll inevitably have a separate internet layer / set of protocols / etc. where information will be freely broadcastable and exchangeable without enforcement of any laws. We de-facto have it now too, but it's practically geek-only hence no real "broadcast" to masses of people function can be achieved.
And that once such tech becomes usable by a large percent of the general population (by eg. allowing "unsecure" websites to "do anything") and we make the mistake to add a truly functional and anonymous money transfer technology to this layer of information tech, we're royally screwed as a species.
I obviously don't want a lawless and free for all regular/default internet because on the regular internet we exchange real money and we have real identities. I'm perfectly OK with having lawless layer of information exchange and broadcasting (it's just a natural generalization and globalization of "free speech" and I think it's crucial for humanity) and even working to making them usable by the general population, as long as we don't allow any serious kind of money transfer and commerce to happen through them. Eg. A psycho posting a killing video once a decade is no biggie and would happen anyway, let's at least enjoy it / groups of psycho creating a market and industry for their "products", not ok. Two random guys planning to meet to exchange some guns for some money is no biggie and already happens anyway; trading weapons on scales to supply real wars not ok. Etc.
De-facto "having sites op-out of anti-fraud legislation" or of "human rights" protections is already happening, and is less obvious because of the centralized nature of our current internet. A less centralized internet will just allow it to happen in the open in theory. Only it won't because since they're already doing other more serious illegal stuff and don't want to draw attention.
PP's "Bizarre idea. Should websites be allowed" thinking was just funny and ridiculous at the same time: there's nothing bizzare, thing are already happening (naturally) like this, and ofc it's happening discretely (eg. having telegram or other messaging app groups instead of http websites but performing similar functions etc etc) and in the silence bc ppl doing them do even more illegal stuff and nobody wants attention from authority or ppl concerned with morality ...and I couldn't help make fun of it a bit. It's the kind of guys that argue against free speech and yell the "but think of the kids" argument at us all the time, and it's tiresome to have to trick them all the time since reasoning with them doesn't work...
So suggesting that maybe we should bring what's already happening anyway in the open, base it on more open standards technology, have it be indexable by search engines etc. :P I'd rather have a legal:any flag that I can add to a google search when I want to go off the beaten track then to have to switch the program/protocol I'm using (and the browser should make sure as hell I don't leak my identity and don't pay for anything on such unsafe sites), and that's the crux of it, the browser would know that a site is unsafe and needs total sandboxing simply because the site owner has decide to "opt out of the laws" - you realize that longer term when s settles down it's a win win situation for everyone if you just twist your mind out of the default narrative the current tech-corporate establishment is brainwashing you with...
(Or the "let's make a decentralized and truly free internet layer" into a real and usable thing... or the crypto-crimies will beat us to it and do a version that also has payments, generates obvious disasters/wars etc., and then is taken over by big gov and turned to a totalitarian nightmare with social credit tracking extra features" argument.)
> this was the original dream of non-national cyberspace
cyberspace was about freeing the people and the flow of information between people, not the corporations that silo the data in their data centers for ptofit.
besides karelp's sister comment, there's also the "obvious" fact that stock price is not a function of time, it's not P(t), it's a function of time and the entire f universe that also evolves through time, more like P(t, U(t, ....)) ....you can simplify things by assuming the laws of physics are deterministic and you only need one instance of the state of the universe, U, so you'd have P(t, U)
...now if you don't explicitly represent U as a parameter, you'll have it implicit in the function. So your "neural network" contains the entire state of the freakin universe (!!).
Ergo, contingent on your stance on theologic immanence vs. transcendence, what you'd call "neural network approximation of the stock's price function" is probably quite close to what other call... God (!).
(Now, if relativity as we know it is right, you might get aways with a "smaller slice of U" - lear about "light cone". And to phrase this in karelp's explanation context: you'd need to know U to know which of the practically infinitely many such neural networks to pick. The core of (artificial) intelligence is not neural networks in themselves, it's learning, the NN is a quite boring computational structure, but you can implement tractable learning strategies for it, both in code, and in living cells as evolution has shown...)
And you'd have to know the state of U to infinite precision. Which makes me wonder whether neural nets have any hope with a simple chaotic function. Maybe they do but just in the short term, like predicting the weather.
Bc there's some treaty prohibiting space-based weapons smth smth... hence your satelite will not be able to carry missiles (or use them without admitting it carried them).
...and bc ICBMs are not weapons you'd want to EVER see used :)
You'd probably use this to hit a bad guy's house/hospital/school inside airspace protected by another superpower (hence drones and other stuff won't work) based on ground based humint whose information will likely be stale after a couple hours. It could mean way less victims than conventional warfare, so ugly as it is, it's better than destroyed cities and waves of refugees.
All in all cool to see superpowers doing dick measuring contests with these kinds of stuff, compared to other horrible stuff they could be competing at militarily...
Optimal virulence is kinda bullshit with rapidly evolving things on small timescales...
Sure, if a mutation that makes it give deadly miocarditis 50% of the cases pops up, that strain would have a clear evolutionary disadvantage ...but if a strain that gives 2x worse pneumonia (and maybe a 2x death rate, that overall is still low) with 4x more coughing evolve, it will have an evolutionary advantage, more caughing => more virus in the air etc.
So you absolutely can have viruses evolving towards increased lethality, as long as people infected with the new strain spread the virus more and don't die too soon... you won't get to smth. evolving its way to 80% lethality, but it can very well evolve from <1% to ...50% (scary!).
The whole optimism about patterns of viral evolution is 100% wrong, unless you're thinking at very large timescales, and in environments where humans have not added so many accelerator factors!
It's funny that while it's great to also keep this perspective open as an interesting theoretical avenue, and Penrose is worth appreciating as a very original thinker... all the "evidence" for quantum consciousness theories is probably pure junk sci =)