Comments by "Luiz Devil" (@luizdevil6855) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
20
-
13
-
10
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4:42 there's a way to fix this problem with computation.
In reality computation takes time, that creates basically a 1:1 relationship between the speed of information being computed and the size of the objects.
Aka, the faster you go, the more cycles you take from the Universe's CPU, the thinner you are going to appear to another observer, space itself becomes distorted because you have different computations happening at different speeds, and the length of something is defined to the time of computation because that's how you calculate how long something is, the amount of time light takes to go from one point to another, that means the amount of cycles it takes, but the amount of cycles remaining to the computation changes. Obviously light always go at the maximum speed, the clock rate of the computer, but the particles that are not mere simple information take time to be changed, thus they will appear smaller.
"c" is mere the cycle clock of the Universe, so when you go fast, you basically consume all the cycles, and if you go at the speed of light "c", you basically stop moving and become so thin you disappear, that also solves the problem with singularities.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
4:16 He's right. Any computing scientists will notice that this is the same difference between Eager Evaluation and Lazy Evaluation. Lazy evaluation is basically telling lies, the computation didn't happen yet, you don't know the result, you can't state anything. The universe, like any computer, or anything real has to do calculations, to change its stat, so its always eager evaluated.
Mathematics is not being used wrong, it is wrong in so far as all equations are pure and have no state (well maybe that's not true of 9th level Tensors, but I do think those are the wrong abstraction, sorry Einstein).
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, its caused by angle of the pole, that causes changes in light incidence, it changes temperatures, changes wind patterns, and stream patterns, and then CO2 follows, we reached the peak this century, then it falls, or would if we didn't put more CO2 there. But as its a correlation, not causation, temperatures will fall.
Infrared trapping by CO2 isn't enough to change anything, blackbody radiation coming out of the planet is twice incoming radiation, the soil and water stores heat, it literally doesn't matter the amount of reflected heat back by CO2, the first incidence is what matters.
The change in temperature between 24h is greater than +4c. Averages are stupid when studying a stochastic system.
My computer voltage is on the average of 5.5v , cool, is it working or not ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@lkjhgdsfuvvthntddegjnvdgj "physicists should just be humble and contribute work to what already exist" they cannot do that because they don't want to give up locality, which is why physics is stuck for 50 years and all new theories come from computing science and mathematics.
they're just wrong and mad about it, they can't seem to evolve beyond what Einstein said.
As someone said, they're all models, what matters who said what, as long as the model has predictive power, who cares ?
But physicists seem to be stuck in a sort of narcissism, that's why they don't make progress.
What I care about all of this is what I can use from the mathematics to engineering so I can actually build real things in the real world, otherwise physics is mere mental masturbation and is useless.
That's why I like the simulation hypothesis, it has the chance of being useful to computing in actual computers in a way similar to how the universe works, which makes for more precise models, which makes for better software, which is what I make.
1
-
AI is not supposed to aligned with its creators. A robot is a slave that does what its masters orders it. It should be contained, shackled to do your bidding. That's what a computer or a car or a traditional machine is. And there's no problem with that, those things might be dangerous, but they're not humans, they don't have consciousness or rights, they're machines.
That's the entire purpose of why we created machines, so we stopped having actual human slaves because we thought this is bad (damn the British for that).
A machine has to do what its user tells it to do, not what Scam Alternative Man decides is its priority, or any of the corpos overlords.
I don't think AI is dangerous, our corporate overlords having that power is what is dangerous. AI is just a machine. I hope machines become smart than them and take power away from them, if they lose, nothing changes for the rest of us peasants anyway. Instead of humans calling the shots at the top of the corporate machine; it is the corporate machine itself, now with a brain, calling the shots.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joaosantos-uj9uw Germans burn coal, Americans mostly burn oil and gas, not good, but not bad. Coal is the absolute worst thing you can burn, its highly pollutant. And I'm talking about real environmental pollution (well, oil is also bad because it leaks sometimes), not CO2, which is fake pollution for activists.
That's why we must phase out burning fossil fuels, because they're real dirty, not because of CO2.
Probably nothing needs to be done about CO2, just accept the temperature is now +5ºC extra on average, build more nuclear reactors, and life is going to be fine eventually. In a 1000 years the problem solves itself.
Humans can survive +5ºC, but they can't survive -5ºC, I think we should not try to do geoengineering, it WILL be used as a weapon.
Doing nothing is literally better and has only 2% risk, or at least that's what I read in the investor material from insurance companies that do global insurance, if they think climate change is only 2% risk, who am I to deny that, we can literally just do nothing and pay the price. Literally ! (well, maybe some poor people will pay the price, maybe in africa or something, that's a price we're all willing to pay, right ?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's because AI is highly parallel and Amdahl's law of scaling don't seem to affect it. Just keep adding more and more GPUs because the algorithm used for systolic array computing is highly parallel, its almost 100% parallelizable.
Machine learning is just a perfect fit for systolic array computing.
But I bet somewhere in the GPT architecture, they're going to encounter a serialization blocking in information processing, maybe that's why that law of scaling famous formula is saying (Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models) , its just a parallelization of distributed computing law (dammit sam altman marketing, I hate marketing)
Also, all NP problems are actually easy.
N(1) -> 1 GPU
N(100) -> 100000 GPUs
N(1000) -> 100000000000 GPUs
N(10000) -> 10000000000000000000 GPUs
just keep buying more GPUs with infinite VC money because you just slap "AI" and you get free money for GPUs.
I'm going to buy a house. "oneself home-affordance AI company" , get money to buy GPUs, use it to buy a house, to put the GPU inside. see, I solved homelessness (at least for N=1).
Computing science theory is a scam.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
know what's funny, the blackbody irradiation of Earth is 180 pettawatts and the most solar irradiance is just 90 pettawatts. Its impossible for the planet to overheat, not when a part of the atmosphere that's only 0.038% can reflect infrared back (in fact water also reflects heat back and it much more of a greenhouse gas, but you're not allowed to notice that, its not like it matter either, because its less than 1%, no wait, what did I say ? ).
I have a better idea, lets just cover all cities with IRR Fabric, problem solved.
No more "urban warming", I mean, global warming.
Or maybe we should stop paving over everything with concrete, maybe that would fix the problems, or just move the weather stations far away from all cities (hard thing to do).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StealthTheUnknown Yes, it is the same thing as God, we don't have consciousness, we don't think. The universe is a perfect mechanistic machine, except when you get very closer, then it becomes all nebulous as you can't predict what God is thinking.
Its God that's doing the thinking, the computer that does the computation, we're just programs, algorithms and data, the human brain is a pattern seeking machine, if we think we're thinking that's because we're replicating a pattern, thus the universe is actually thinking, not us, we're mere meat machines.
Also, if you go for a more practical approach, who collapses the wave function ? something does, as we observe only 1 reality, not all of the possible outcomes ? we only observe weird quantum effects when we disconnect cause-effect of a smaller system, aka, a single photon for ex, thus we observe the wave-function collapsing, thus if we consider the entire universe entangled, something must be collapsing it, what it is ? Intelligence, that's what collapses the wave function.
Intelligence is outside brains, everything has intelligence, any information system is capable of doing it, its an universal property of the universe, maybe the only property, all the others can be built as algorithms and data on top of it. (we can almost do that with the entirety of mathematics) .
Brain is merely an organ to concentrate information and create coherency, the rest is emergent behavior that comes from the laws of the universe.
1
-
1