Comments by "⃠" (@U20E0) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

Absolutely
10
as the above person said, turing machines do not have an infinite tape, they have an arbitrarily large tape
9
@heisag sign choice is arbitrary
8
XiloByte
4
information likes to disappear here too
4
@phonkey no, it's the BRÄMM
3
@Goryus The loop itself is a continuous process that can be conscious. Your brain may change state with every "instance", but the function that governs its operation doesn't.
3
@b.w.6152 it's most likely a name
2
The larger an object is, the more it interacts with other objects
2
b43xoit or better, just consume it immediately and use if for electricity generation instead. I have no idea why people are so focused on transport
2
Also, there are plenty of quantum effects involved in this thing called chemistry, and the brain has "some" of that in it. I'm not commenting on whether or not this theory is right, but (at least the way it's presented here), it's not clear what this theory is even stating.
2
@id01_01 true. The actual thing this does is make it possible to track who made any "real" image.
2
that's not how analogies work
2
@gorilladisco9108 a lot of languages have the words in the other order
2
If you're going to apply physics to consciousness, first define consciousness in terms of it. You will find this task impossible.
2
@dialy1 US average doesn't matter because US people statistically shouldn't have a driver's license
2
@steffenbendel6031 But you can't multiply those
1
@HyenaEmpyema Pretty much a third of replied i write is either immediately deleted, or i later get a notification because someone else posts in the thread only to find my reply nowhere to be seen. I do not know how many more are shadowed, but this platform is unusable.
1
@traumflug lo and behold, what i said here was affected
1
There isn't a correct direction. It's usually drawn as a depression because there usually is something drawn above the plane. That said, this graph isn't going to be correct anyway since it has negative gravity in it.
1
@shazzz_land go learn what ML means before commenting
1
That isn't structurally possible. Neither is a full sphere.
1
@shadowmystery5613 and the answer would still be no
1
researchers claim a lot
1
that statement does NOT look good
1
i think it's both at once, since the latter contributes to the former
1
@renedekker9806 you can't @ people not already part of the replies
1
that is generally how papers work
1
@renedekker9806 or, cooling.
1
the answers are two: 1. the true answer is unknown, and it is not possible to ever obtain that answer because, ultimately, any possible test requires some form of observation by a human, and specifically by you Then this turns into philosophy if you try to go any further. 2. it's relative -- if a device observes the particle, the device is now itself in a superposition, which is collapsed from it's perspective but no-one else knows that because they haven't interacted with it. If you observe the device you are now in a superposition, which is collapsed from your perspective, but no-one else knows that because they haven't interacted with you.
1
@robertvirnig42 True. but it still works. Although i would like a counterexample if it actually doesn't
1
@timboutilier4769 a shockingly large fraction of the ones made uintentionally by the Onion, but other than that, almost none.
1
if i remember, it's similar to an FPGA
1
@angelstrawn5493 one is a subset of the other
1
@drewdaly61 yes
1
@drewdaly61 we are good at being in an offended state
1
differing and uncertain definitions of "interaction" seem to cause a lot of confusion
1
this could be referring to a number of people, and that is disturbing
1
it can theoretically, if it reads it's own input in a loop, but practically that (also) causes it to forget English.
1
@Goryus i think you missed a very important word in my first comment: "theoretically" ( which should have actually been "hypothetically" but whatever ) This won't ever happen, especially not unintentionally. And maybe it can't, but none of this conversation actually matters anyway: You highlighted the actual issue with the comment on for loops. All processes are equally deterministic, the entire universe is just an infinite loop with some equations and updating a state, with some randomness thrown in. Is the universe conscious? Does that question even make sense? Consciousness is a completely arbitrary philosophical concept, and there really isn't any reason to even mention it when talking about AI, although we will, because discussing subjective things is what makes humans human. I personally believe the duck method is most reasonable: If it walks like a duck and if quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. If it acts like it acts like it has opinions, then it is conscious ( and current LLMs generally don't, although i think the only reason is training methods )
1