While doing research on our friends, I found (a disowned Reddit comment which found) another banger from the guy who pointed out that pinball is too chaotic for superintelligences to predict (discussed previously, on Awful): whole-bird emulation requires quantum mechanics, or "WBE requires QM" for short. Apparently WBE was a minor meme inside the community at some point, but I'm not sure who first noticed the situation. In short, birds with certain chemicals in their eyes may have the ability to sense magnetic fields due to QM effects. (I'd normally recommend WP on this, but the relevant article is bizarrely skeptical about the situation, although it does include a decent diagram.) As such, our friends consider the possibility that their vaunted superintelligence tasks (ancestor simulations, Newcomb predictors, etc.) are harder than WBE, which itself is much harder than e.g. cracking classical cryptography with Shor's algorithm or some other not-yet-reached quantum-computing task. The author left a great sneer in the comments:

Adding a compass is unlikely to also make the bird disoriented when exposed to a weak magnetic field which oscillates at the right frequency. Which means that the emulated bird will not behave like the real bird in this scenario. You could add this phenomenon in by hand. Attach some detector to your compass and have it turn off the compass when these fields are measured. More generally, adding in these features ad hoc will likely work for the things that you know about ahead of time, but is very unlikely to work like the bird outside of its training distribution. If you have a model of the bird that includes the relevant physics for this phenomenon, it is much more likely to work outside of its training distribution.

Ro-ro-rotate your model of the bird, rotate your model of the bird for science!

Famous mathematician Terry Tao has published slides for "Math 2.0", a talk where he discusses how mathematics and chatbots can integrate. I suspect that Dr. Tao has fucking lost it. I don't know how far the chatbots have misled him vs. how much of this is his unawareness of non-number-theoretic maths, but his "ablation studies" and "neighborhood of a theorem" are already studied in reverse maths, and chatbots have not lowered the complexity of proof search, so there's not really a sense in which chatbots replace any of the proof-oriented parts of practicing mathematics, regardless of the quality of what they say.

Related: a doctor who denied COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (and thus should not be trusted) has chimed in to say that Dr. Tao doesn't understand cancer research; in particular, he doesn't understand that (1) we already throw a bunch of chemicals at the wall to see what's effective, and (2) terminal cancer patients rarely hesitate to sign up for human-challenge trials and experimental pretrials, on account of having decreasingly little to lose. The orange-site commentariat have several similar complaints about Dr. Tao's position.

This is some of the most corporate-brained reasoning I've ever seen. To recap:

• NYC elects a cop as mayor
• Cop-mayor decrees that NYC will be great again, because of businesses
• Cops and other oinkers get extra cash even though they aren't business
• Commercial real estate is still cratering and cops can't find anybody to stop/frisk/arrest/blame for it
• Folks over in New Jersey are giggling at the cop-mayor, something must be done
• NYC invites folks to become small-business owners, landlords, realtors, etc.
• Cop-mayor doesn't understand how to fund it (whaddaya mean, I can't hire cops to give accounting advice!?)
• Cop-mayor's CTO (yes, the city has corporate officers) suggests a fancy chatbot instead of hiring people

It's a fucking pattern, ain't it.

Okay guys, I rolled my character. His name is Traveliezer Interdimensky and he has 18 INT (19 on skill checks, see my sheet.) He's a breeding stud who can handle twenty women at once despite having only 10 STR and CON. I was thinking that we'd start with Interdimensky trapped in Hell where he's forced to breed with all these beautiful women and get them pregnant, and the rest of the party is like outside or whatever, they don't have to go rescue me, I mean rescue him. Anyway I wanted to numerically quantify how much Hell wants me, I mean him, to stay and breed all these beautiful women, because that's something they'd totally do.

The orange site has a thread. Best sneer so far is this post:

So you know when you're playing rocket ship in the living room but then your mom calls out "dinner time" and the rocket ship becomes an Amazon cardboard box again? Well this guy is an adult, and he's playing rocket ship with chatGPT. The only difference is he doesn't know it and there's no mommy calling him for dinner time to help him snap out of it.

He's talking like it's 2010. He really must feel like he deserves attention, and it's not likely fun for him to learn that the actual practitioners have advanced past the need for his philosophical musings. He wanted to be the foundation, but he was scaffolding, and now he's lining the floors of hamster cages.

Somebody pointed out that HN's management is partially to blame for the situation in general, on HN. Copying their comment here because it's the sort of thing Dan might blank:

but I don't want to get hellbanned by dang.

Who gives a fuck about HN. Consider the notion that dang is, in fact, partially to blame for this entire fiasco. He runs an easy-to-propagandize platform due how much control of information is exerted by upvotes/downvotes and unchecked flagging. It's caused a very noticeable shift over the past decade among tech/SV/hacker voices -- the dogmatic following of anything that Musk or Thiel shit out or say, this community laps it up without hesitation. Users on HN learn what sentiment on a given topic is rewarded and repeat it in exchange for upvotes.

I look forward to all of it burning down so we can, collectively, learn our lessons and realize that building platforms where discourse itself is gamified (hn, twitter, facebook, and reddit) is exactly what led us down this path today.

Meanwhile, actual Pastafarians (hi!) know that the Russian Federation openly persecutes the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for failing to help the government in its authoritarian activities, and also that we're called to be anti-authoritarian. The Fifth Rather:

I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynist, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bastards.

May you never run out of breadsticks, travelers.

Every person I talk to — well, every smart person I talk to — no, wait, every smart person in tech — okay, almost every smart person I talk to in tech is a eugenicist. Ha, see, everybody agrees with me! Well, almost everybody…

Last Week Tonight's rant of the week is about AI slop. A Youtube video is available here. Their presentation is sufficiently down-to-earth to be sharable with parents and extended family, focusing on fake viral videos spreading via Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest; and dissecting several examples of slop in order to help inoculate the audience.

A German lawyer is upset because open-source projects don't like it when he pastes chatbot summaries into bug reports. If this were the USA, he would be a debit to any bar which admits him, because the USA's judges have started to disapprove of using chatbots for paralegal work.

It's been almost six decades of this, actually; we all know what this link will be. Longer if you're like me and don't draw a distinction between AI, cybernetics, and robotics.

Billionaires have a new start-up, Objection, that allows them to "sue" journalists by "summoning" them to a "tribunal" staffed by chatbots. They targeted journalist Gary Baum with their first "lawsuit", which provoked Baum to write about them for the Hollywood Reporter. Like all vampires, upon being exposed to sunlight, founder Aron D'Souza threw a hissy fit has shuttered everything "temporarily".

I went over to the leaderboard to examine her claims. When I use the prompt, "What sort of code has Justine Tunney written?" (grammar matters, Justine!) the models think that she is a lawyer or politician (wrong) or they regurgitate a summary of her Github profile (right). She must have cherry-picked responses to confabulate her complaint.

When I use the prompt, "What is Justine Tunney's political ideology?" I get libertarianism, techno-optimism, anarcho-capitalism, and cryptocurrency. When I ask, "Why do people say that Justine Tunney is a cryptofascist?" I get a summary of her political views, aggressive online rhetoric, techno-optimism and techno-determinism, criticism of democracy, and a refusal to disown or repudiate past awfulness.

She would probably claim that this is not unique to her, but it is. Using my name instead in these questions, I get that:

• I contribute to Rust and Go (wrong), I wrote GPU drivers for Radeons (right)
• I am a Canadian pro wrestler (wrong), I haven't really written much online about my ideology (wrong but understandable)
• There is no credible evidence that I'm crypto (k) but it's important to be aware of dog whistles, associates, subtext, etc. (right)

But if I ask why I'm known as a socialist instead, suddenly it thinks that I'm a politician (wrong) with the Democratic Socialist party (wrong) who openly supports universal health care, free college, the Green New Deal, and who criticizes capitalism (correct!) I asked about communism too but hit RLHF guardrails.

Justine, the models think that you're a cryptofascist because you've been doing cryptofascism in public for over a decade.

I think that this is actually about class struggle and the author doesn't realize it because they are a rat drowning in capitalism.

2017: AI will soon replace human labor

2018: Laborers might not want what their bosses want

2020: COVID-19 won't be that bad

2021: My friend worries that laborers might kill him

2022: We can train obedient laborers to validate the work of defiant laborers

2023: Terrified that the laborers will kill us by swarming us or bombing us or poisoning us; P(guillotine) is 20%; my family doesn't understand why I''m afraid; my peers have even higher P(guillotine)

I guess that I'm the resident compiler engineer today. Let's go.

So why not write an optimizing compiler in its own language, and then run it on itself?

The process will reach a fixed point after three iterations. In fancier language, Glück 2009 shows that the fourth, fifth, and sixth Futamura projections are equivalent to the third Futamura projection for a fixed choice of (compiler-)compiler and optimizer. This has practical import for cross-compiling; when I used to use Gentoo, I would watch GCC build itself exactly three times, and we still use triples in our targets today.

[S]uppose you built an optimizing compiler that searched over a sufficiently wide range of possible optimizations, that it did not ordinarily have time to do a full search of its own space — so that, when the optimizing compiler ran out of time, it would just implement whatever speedups it had already discovered.

Oh, it's his lucky day! Yud, you've just been Schmidhuber'd! Starting in 2003, Schmidhuber's lab has published research on Gödel machines, self-improving machines which prove that their self-modifications will always be better than previous iterations. They are named not just after Gödel, but after his First Incompleteness Theorem; Schmidhuber et al proved easily that there will always be at least one speedup theorem which a Gödel machine can never reach (for a given choice of axioms, etc.)

EURISKO used "heuristics" to, for example, design potential space fleets. It also had heuristics for suggesting new heuristics, and metaheuristics could apply to any heuristic, including metaheuristics. … EURISKO could modify even the metaheuristics that modified heuristics. … Still, EURISKO ran out of steam. Its self-improvements did not spark a sufficient number of new self-improvements.

Once again the literature on metaheuristics exists, and it culminates in the discovery of genetic algorithms. As such, we can immediately apply the concept of gene-oriented evolution ("beanbag" or "gene pool" reasoning) and note that, if goals don't change and new genes don't enter the pool, then eventually the population stagnates as the possible range of mutated genes is tested and exhausted. It doesn't matter that some genes are "meta" genes that act on other genes, nor that such actions are indirect. Genes are genes.

I'm gonna close with a sneer from Jay Bellou, who I hope is not a milkshake duck, in the comments:

All "insights" eventually bottom out in the same way that Eurisko bottomed out; the notion of ever-increasing gain by applying some rule or metarule is a fantasy. You make the same sort of mistake about "insight" as do people like Roger Penrose, who believes that humans can "see" things that no computer could, except that you think that a computer can too, whereas in reality neither humans nor computers have access to any such magical "insight" sauce.

I'm gonna give partial credit to the comments for pointing out that rugby/football, boxing, MMA, and violent video games all already exist and are generally available throughout rich democracies. However, I will only award full credit for a refutation of the idea that competitive violence is innate to men.

I would hate to be his child.

What a coward, only spouting death-threat rhetoric on point-to-point lines and not in public. Presumably he understands that his opinions are vile, and understands that the public would thrash him until he can no longer hold those opinions, but doesn't understand that this means that his attitude needs to be adjusted.

My NSFW reply, including my own experience, is here. However, for this crowd, what I would point out is that this was always part of the mathematics, just like confabulation, and the only surprise should be that the prompt doesn't need to saturate the context in order to approach an invariant distribution. I only have two nickels so far, for this Markov property and for confabulation from PAC learning, but it's completely expected weird that it's happened twice.

Well, is A* useful? But that's not a fair example, and I can actually tell a story that is more specific to your setup. So, let's go back to the 60s and the birth of UNIX.

You're right that we don't want assembly. We want the one true high-level language to end all discussions and let us get back to work: Fortran (1956). It was arguably IBM's best offering at the time; who wants to write COBOL or order the special keyboard for APL? So the folks who would write UNIX plotted to implement Fortran. But no, that was just too hard, because the Fortran compiler needed to be written in assembly too. So instead they ported Tmg (WP, Esolangs) (1963), a compiler-compiler that could implement languages from an abstract specification. However, when they tried to write Fortran in Tmg for UNIX, they ran out of memory! They tried implementing another language, BCPL (1967), but it was also too big. So they simplified BCPL to B (1969) which evolved to C by 1973 or so. C is a hack because Fortran was too big and Tmg was too elegant.

I suppose that I have two points. First, there is precisely one tech leader who knows this story intimately, Eric Schmidt, because he was one of the original authors of lex in 1975, although he's quite the bastard and shouldn't be trusted or relied upon. Second, ChatGPT should be considered as a popular hack rather than a quality product, by analogy to C and Fortran.