[David Cooper]

Will your AGI be programmed to push us off the nest then, thus to stop caring for us for a while?

I don't see any problem there. You get to the point where you want to break out and do something different, there is no requirement for that different thing to be immoral. So long as it is moral, it's something that AGI will support. There is no need for us to go through a phase where we suddenly join a terrorist group and have to be tolerated for a while by everyone else while we get it out of our system by committing genocides. There are simpler ways to leave home which simply involve finding somewhere else to live and having a bit of an adventure. If you want a bigger adventure, you can travel the world for a time, or indeed for the rest of your life. The only limits are moral ones.

It would have been interesting to see a discussion between the AGI and the people about how they felt since they got everything they wanted, and since they had no problems to solve anymore. I would have liked to see the AGI not being able to understand why they felt bad, then see the people immediately feeling good again, then see the AGI freeze because it is unable to find what he did right. :0)

You need to write a film script, screenplay or novel then, but if you seek my help, I'll kill the plot by showing you that AGI is always able to fix the problems. Whenever you have people who think there's a better way to do things, they'll be shown to be wrong - if their ideas were actually better, AGI would have learned that and would already be applying their ideas. If they're determined to have a go at doing something differently though, they will be able to try it out in a simulated world so that they can find out how woeful their ideas are without harming anyone real, and if they still insist that they want to run the real world that way, then they would need to get the permission of all the people who would likely be harmed by running things in a sub-optimal way.

If it is so, then your AGI will obviously heft its own feelings the same way we do.

It won't have any feelings of its own, so I don't know how it would "heft" them, or what that means.

...why would scientists behave differently.

Because it's expected of them that they apply mathematics correctly and trust it rather than bending it beyond breaking point while claiming they're following the rules. There are right and wrong answers in mathematics and the wrong ones are not supposed to be tolerated. A model that does not function as claimed when it is run in strict accordance with its own rules is a broken model. Run the 4D model to generate a universe from past to future without bringing in any time into it other than the "time dimension" to govern the unfolding of events on different paths and you necessarily get event-meshing failures. It is elementary stuff - a simple thing to program, and it shows the model to be broken right from the start. Any attempt to fix it brings in that other kind of time (tied to an absolute frame), and if you have two kinds of time in the model while a rival model (LET) only needs one, Occam's razor says you should prefer the simpler model.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Because it's expected of them that they apply mathematics correctly

The problem is not with maths, it's with resistance to change. That kind of resistance is as blind to facts as mass is. Trying to convince somebody to understand what we say without previously resisting to it is like trying to convince a stone not to resist immediately to it's acceleration. The only thing that differs has to do with predictions: we know in advance how much a stone will resist to its acceleration whereas it is less evident with people. With intelligence, resistance gets subjective: we know people always resist, but we think it's bad will instead of realising that we do the same thing. It's illogical to think that the good will is always on our side, but even knowing that, we go on having the same feeling all the time. Resistance does the same thing to our intelligence our instincts do: both produce the immediate feeling that we are right and that others are wrong. That's the feeling you get, but that's also the feeling scientists get, and no fact can take it away. It's not bad will, it's normal resistance to change. Things take time to change, that's all, and it has nothing to do with intelligence. The proof is that you didn't understand what I meant yet even if it's easy to understand. :0)

[David Cooper]

The problem is not with maths, it's with resistance to change.

The problem is with maths. If someone produces incorrect answers in a maths class, they're wrong - we don't defend them by saying they're resisting change because they're simply refusing to play by the rules. Maths is a discipline in which you conform to a set of fundamental rules and never break them. Physics is bound by the same rules, and when people break them, they're wrong.

With intelligence, resistance gets subjective: we know people always resist, but we think it's bad will instead of realising that we do the same thing.

With maths, you show where they're breaking the rules and that's it resolved. But what would happen if you had an elite in mathematics which broke their own rules and ridiculed anyone who tried to correct them?

It's not bad will, it's normal resistance to change.

What it is is a whole bunch of people who are supposed to be leading a scientific discipline who are refusing to co-operate when their position is questioned. There defence is evasion.

Things take time to change, that's all, and it has nothing to do with intelligence. The proof is that you didn't understand what I meant yet even if it's easy to understand. :0)

In a field like maths or physics, it has everything to do with effective intelligence because when people refuse to look at their errors, they are failing horribly. What happens over and over again is you see the same diversion tactics by people who refuse to contemplate the possibility that they're wrong. I've just had another typical exchange on quora with someone who accused me of misrepresenting SR, but these jokers always refuse to spell out their version of SR because they realise that it will break in the same way as what I've shown them. They nitpick about wording and never get to substance. I show them the 3-mode simulation and ask them to point me to a model that doesn't break when simulated, but they can never do it - the guy today just called my relativity page a "manifesto" and refused to discuss details. They're a bunch of frauds who just throw stones and run away.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

the guy today just called my relativity page a "manifesto" and refused to discuss details. They're a bunch of frauds who just throw stones and run away.

That's what usually happens when we tell people belonging to a group that they are wrong. You're too direct on your page on relativity, and it doesn't help to convince relativists. You're a lot less direct when you discuss with me even if you know I don't agree with you on the way things must change. It takes time to change things anyway, so no need to rush. It may even happen that they change so slowly that the change is hard to observe. If you want to make a difference though, I suggest that you change a few words here and there in your paper so as not to put the relativists on their gard. Resistance to change is already sufficiently hard to overcome as it is. Even if I believe I'm right, I don't take my ideas too seriously since I'm the only one to think so, nevertheless, we need to believe in our ideas for a while to have the time to test them out, but we don't need to behave as if we were right. If we ever win this race, it shall be with humility, not pride, so it is while hiding our pride since we absolutely need to be proud of our ideas to expose them.

[guest4091]

DC;
#203

When a species evolves, it does so by natural selection rewarding useful mutations and punishing bad ones, but the mutations continue to be random - no lessons are learned about bad mutations, so they are made repeatedly and a lot of individual animals suffer greatly as a result.

[Species don't evolve. Darwin was observing adaptation to the environment or lack of it, as in attrition. Environmental changes, drought, water contamination, hunting/harvesting to the point of extinction, disease, reduced habitat size, ... there are enough negative factors without evolution. The natural world shows all varieties of animal life forms survive exactly as they are, directly contradicting his ideas. Any life form would not survive, if it had to wait to develop mature characteristics. Pick any bird of prey. If its eyes aren't fully developed as a mature bird, it will not survive.
Being a self appointed spokesman for God, and in relation to his belief, he is saying a supreme being is not capable of creating a species complete and fit to survive in its environment without modification.
You will never convince cancer patients that mutations are beneficial to their health.
There are lessons learned, avoid: contaminating the environment with unnecessary chemicals, toxic wastes, medications without sufficient historical trials (thalidomide).
Mutations are abnormal. DNA is a program built from molecules. The last thing you would want in a program is a mutation.]

[guest4091]

DC;

Consider the common misnomer 'motion pictures', where people view still images in rapid succession. The mind actually supplies the 'motion'.
The computer screen is a similar instance, where pixels are switched on and off in rapid sequence, and the mind melds them into the perception of a moving image.
That's the essence of simulation/animation.
A spacetime drawing has the same informational content. It's just the history of plotting a spatial coordinate with a corresponding time coordinate.
The graphics are a geometrical presentation of the coordinate transformations of SR. The results can be verified using the math expressions of the Lorentz transformations.
No such thing as 'event meshing' ever developed in relativity theory, by Lorentz, Einstein, or Poincare. It's your idea.
----------------------------------------------
Any form of Artificial Intelligence is incomplete, since it will not contain all thought in all circumstances, especially judgments regarding morality, equity, etc. The pottery is always less than the potter.
Mathematics is a humanly conceived language, and serves as a verification tool for science. Its purpose is for measurement. If it can't be measured, then science can't study it. This includes intangible spiritual things, love, charity sympathy, joy, etc.
It is not capable of fixing the world problem.
If you need to blame someone for the undesirable, hurtful things in the world, then the first human pair who made a wrong freewill choice on our behalf are guilty.
We can't thank them for our inheritance.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Species don't evolve.

Well, the only other way around is God, and it's a lot older idea than evolution. In case you didn't know, we just discovered that the scientist that discovered it was a dinosaur! :0)

If you need to blame someone for the undesirable, hurtful things in the world, then the first human pair who made a wrong freewill choice on our behalf are guilty.

That's not far from the idea of god, so I guess we should blame that idea first.

[David Cooper]

That's what usually happens when we tell people belonging to a group that they are wrong. You're too direct on your page on relativity, and it doesn't help to convince relativists.

It makes no difference how you word it - I've done all the experiments to see, and they throw insults every time instead of engaging with the argument. They are psychologically incapable of handling the idea that they're wrong, and any suggestion that they are, no matter how gently you lead them to it, is taken as an attack on them - they feel insulted and they feel the need to throw actual insults back.

[David Cooper]

DC;

You're previous post is a response to something said by Le Rapteux. Perhaps you might want to edit out the DC that you put at the top of it.

Consider the common misnomer 'motion pictures', where people view still images in rapid succession. The mind actually supplies the 'motion'.
The computer screen is a similar instance, where pixels are switched on and off in rapid sequence, and the mind melds them into the perception of a moving image.
That's the essence of simulation/animation.

The real universe is doing actual things and a simulation attempts to represent them. If we have events happening in order of past to future and we have some events happening while other events happen (such as twin A's journey and twin B's journey happening while each other are happening, those events play out in such a way that twin B's turn arround half way through his trip happens wile part of twin A's journey is happening. Changing frame asserts a different point on twin A's journey for the time when B turns around, and only one of those frames can be a true account of when that happened.

A spacetime drawing has the same informational content. It's just the history of plotting a spatial coordinate with a corresponding time coordinate.

A Spacetime drawing is not a simulation unless you run it to show simultaneity. The only mathematically valid justification for banning simultaneity at a difference is if you are using a 4D block universe model which has no running time in it. That is how it can be justified, but unfortunately for that model it cannot account for the generation of the block which has to be carried out under the rules for a running time, and that either requires an absolute frame or it generates event-meshing failures.

The graphics are a geometrical presentation of the coordinate transformations of SR. The results can be verified using the math expressions of the Lorentz transformations.
No such thing as 'event meshing' ever developed in relativity theory, by Lorentz, Einstein, or Poincare. It's your idea.

Event-meshing failures are an automatic consequence of running the model without an absolute frame - it is a mathematical necessity that event-meshing failures will occur for the twins paradox if you run such a model. Anyone in the SR camp who doesn't have a simulation that produces them and thinks that rules them out has quite simply not done the work and is unqualified to comment on this issue.

It's quite simple: any attempt to simulate the model either has to have an absolute frame (which it can change at the flick of a switch if you like, but that shows up the contradictions that Minkowski wanted to get away from), or it will reveal event-meshing failures. There are no other ways to simulate it. That's why you still can't point me to a working simulation that doesn't either cheat or show up the defects directly.

Any form of Artificial Intelligence is incomplete, since it will not contain all thought in all circumstances, especially judgments regarding morality, equity, etc. The pottery is always less than the potter.

Any intelligence has to work with incomplete data, but there is a correct answer for any given amount of available data which will tell you what is most probably the right thing to do, and that is the thing that should be done. In any such case, not doing it could be better on some occasions by luck, but if you keep doing the things that aren't most probably right, you will get things more wrong overall. That is how odds work - it isn't about finding impossible to find answers, but making the best answers that can be calculated in the circumstances.

Mathematics is a humanly conceived language, and serves as a verification tool for science. Its purpose is for measurement. If it can't be measured, then science can't study it. This includes intangible spiritual things, love, charity sympathy, joy, etc.

There are ways to estimate those things which will produce better answers than writing off the information that's available. For example, if you have two zoos, one with large enclosures and one with tiny ones, it's possible to estimate how happy the animals are by studying things like rocking behaviour. Mathematics absolutely can and must be applied to this.

It is not capable of fixing the world problem.

Well, it's a good thing you won't be designing it.

If you need to blame someone for the undesirable, hurtful things in the world, then the first human pair who made a wrong freewill choice on our behalf are guilty.

No one has ever made a freewill choice. What we know though is that we can make a better world by steering it in particular directions that reduce the harm and make life more pleasant, and we are driven to push things in that direction.

[guest4091]

DC;
People are not capable of solving the worlds problems. They are the problem!

[Le Repteux (OP)]

People are not capable of solving the world's problems. They are the problem!

That's close to what I mean when I say that we can't stop wanting more. That's what I do with my small steps, and that's also what David does with his AGI. While trying to improve our lives, we automatically create new problems, so we need to fix them and it automatically creates new ones. David thinks his AGI will end the vicious circle, but to me, it's like thinking it will bring us heaven. There is a problem with such a heaven: rich people have all they need and they don't stop wanting more for all that. I do have all I need but I don't stop wanting my small steps to improve society for all that. Maybe David doesn't have all he needs since it is so evident to me that his AGI won't change our nature. We're made to solve problems, and if ever there is no more to solve because the AGI has already solved them, we're gonna get crazy.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Hi David,

I saw you were quite active on Quora lately. I went down all your answers and I was impressed. I hope you don't mind if I answer those that give me new ideas.

[David Cooper]

Hi David,

I saw you were quite active on Quora lately. I went down all your answers and I was impressed. I hope you don't mind if I answer those that give me new ideas.

I joined Quora recently to ask a question about a bit of maths I needed for 3D graphics, but I found that there's more talent there than anywhere else I've looked when it comes to people working towards AGI, although practically all of them are going down the neural net machine learning path. It's been useful for finding out what they're up to. My maths question related to my ideas about using 3D bitmaps instead of polygons/triangles - I think this could speed things up dramatically, though it may need new designs of GPU to make that a reality. I think it may be possible to use the 3D bitmap method without a GPU to match the performance of current graphics systems using a GPU, and the more cores are stuck in a CPU, the further things should move in favour of my system. With my method, you just walk across 3D bitmaps following screen scanlines, and shadow boundaries can be coded directly into the maps (which is massively less processor intensive for shadows that move slowly, while fast-moving shadows can still be handled by shadow masks).

The relativity thread I referred to is this one: https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-flaws-in-Einstein-s-Theory-of-relativity/ - the person who responded to my answer is of higher quality than I initially thought, but he's only one rung up from the bottom of the ladder, still using a set 2 model that generates an infinite number of contradictions. I'll soon find out if he's capable of learning.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

Sorry David, I can't find any answer to the post where you sent me. Maybe you picked the wrong one. There is no searching tool for our own messages on Quora, so it's hard to find the one we're looking for when we have hundreds of them. I answered one of your messages yesterday, and I had trouble finding it today to give you the URL since it is neither listed on my own profile nor on yours. Here's the URL since I'm not even sure we are warned that an answer has been given to our own answer.

ps.  I found a way to get a more precise URL. I clicked on the right arrow at the bottom right of your message that points to "more sharing options", and then I clicked on "copy link" and I got this URL:  https://qr.ae/TW8V51

[David Cooper]

It isn't obvious (took me a while to spot the route to see replies) is to click on the blue word "ALL" which is written at the end of the box inviting comments. Incidentally, Quora sent me no notification about your comment.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

I did receive a notification for your answer, but the "all" button is not available to me, and I think it's because I didn't directly answer a question like you did. You didn't answer my question about your relativity thread though, and I still can't find the one with the responses to your answer.

[David Cooper]

Well, I can't fix their software. There's nothing I've said there that I haven't said here anyway, so you aren't missing anything. What's good about Quora is that it isn't controlled by the physics mafia, but some of the same people are there that inhabit physics forums, so it makes it possible to discuss things there with them without their bishops being in a position to delete heretical threads.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

In case you weren't notified, I answered your answer here: https://qr.ae/TW8V51
To get notified for my answers, try putting your cursor over my name at the top of my messages and clicking "follow" and "notify me". I think it's because I did that I get notified for yours. I wonder how you got notified for the messages you received on your relativity thread though. The way that software works is interesting, but it needs to be improved. The answers I gave you are not even listed yet in my profile page.

[Le Repteux (OP)]

I suspect you weren't notified for the three answers I gave you lately, so here are the links in case you would like to answer them:
https://www.quora.com/Can-AI-ever-become-conscious/answer/David-Cooper-613
https://www.quora.com/When-a-person-talks-how-can-you-tell-that-they-have-a-high-IQ/answer/David-Cooper-613
https://www.quora.com/If-you-were-God-would-you-destroy-the-world-and-start-over-again-If-so-what-would-you-do-differently/answer/David-Cooper-613

Try following me on your profile page in case you would be notified for my messages.

[David Cooper]

I suspect you weren't notified for the three answers I gave you lately, so here are the links in case you would like to answer them:
https://www.quora.com/Can-AI-ever-become-conscious/answer/David-Cooper-613
https://www.quora.com/When-a-person-talks-how-can-you-tell-that-they-have-a-high-IQ/answer/David-Cooper-613
https://www.quora.com/If-you-were-God-would-you-destroy-the-world-and-start-over-again-If-so-what-would-you-do-differently/answer/David-Cooper-613

Try following me on your profile page in case you would be notified for my messages.

I can't see any reply of yours on the second of those links. I think any further discussion of Quora should be done in PMs though - it shouldn't be bumping this thread to the top of the subforum.