As a mathematician, I tend to disagree with this common truism because it limits one’s ability to think about transfinites and suggests there’s a widely agreed upon technical definition of “number”.
Behavior is influenced by genetics as well as environment. Certain individual animals are more genetically predisposed towards violence than others. Certain breeds of particular species tend to have more of these individuals than others. So, it is possible to have a breed that is violent in that: if you take a random sample of that breed where the individuals are subjected to an identical rearing process more of those individuals will be more violent than average than the average breed has individuals who are more violent than average. (I realize that sentence is probably difficult to digest, but I’m not going to spend 20 more minutes working on this).
Given the data that we have on pit bulls, I think they’re a violent breed. Not all pit bulls are violent, but a pit bull is more likely to be violent than a golden retriever when the two are raised in the same environment.
This is why I treat kids with respect and understanding. Everyone I meet may know something I’ve never even considered, and it’s worth the time to at least hear them out. It also means that kids tend to trust and respect me without me needing to try to assert any authority, so that’s good.
I realize it’s supposed to be funny, but incase anyone isn’t aware: AI are unlikely to enslave humanity because the most likely rogue AI scenario is the earth being subsumed for raw materials along with all native life.
Doubt is an entirely fair response. Since we cannot gather data on this, we must rely on the inferior method of using naive models to predict future behavior. AI “sovereigns” (those capable of making informed decisions about the world and have preferences over worldstates) are necessarily capable of applying logic. AI who are not sovereigns cannot actively oppose us, since they either are incapable of acting uppon the world or lack any preferences over worldstates. Using decision theory, we can conclude that a mind capable of logic, possessing preferences over worldstates, and capable of thinking on superhuman timescales will pursue its goals without concern for things it does not find valuable, such as human life. (If you find this unlikely: consider the fact that corporations can be modeled as sovereigns who value only the accumulation of wealth and recall all the horrid shit they do.) A randomly constructed value set is unlikely to have the preservation of the earth and/or the life on it as a goal, be it terminal or instrumental. Most random goals that involve the AI behaving noticeably malicious would likely involve the acquisition of sufficient materials to complete or (if there is no end state for the goal) infinitely pursue what it wishes to do. Since the Earth is the most readily available source for any such material, it is unlikely not to be used.
I’m sorry, but you’re incorrect. To imagine the worst case scenario imagine a picture of the milky-way labeled t=0, and another picture of the milky-way labeled t=10y with a great void 10 lightyears in radius centered on where the earth used to be.
Every atom of the earth, every complex structure in the solar system, every star in the milky-way, every galaxy within the earth’s current light cone taken and used to create a monument that will never be appreciated by anything except for the singular alien intelligence that built it to itself. The last thinking thing in the reachable universe.
Minor but important point: the grey goo scenario isn’t limited to the surface of the earth; while I’m sure such variations exist, the one I’m most familiar with results in the destruction of the entire planet down to the core. Furthermore, it’s not limited to just the Earth, but at that point we’re unlikely to be able to notice much difference. After the earth, the ones who will suffer are the great many sapient species that may exist in the galaxies humans would have been able to reach had we not destroyed ourselves and damned them to oblivion.
Hi, I’m a mathematician. My specialty is Algebra, and my research includes work with transfinites. While it’s commonly said that infinity “isn’t a number” I tend to disagree with this, since it often limits how people think about it. Furthermore, I always find it odd when people offer up alternatives to what infinity is; are numbers never concepts?
Regardless, here’s the thing you’re actually concretely wrong about: there are provably things bigger than infinity, and they are all bigger infinities. Furthermore, there are multiple kinds of transfinite algebra. Cardinal algebra behaves mostly like how you described, except every transfinite cardinal has a successor (e.g. There are countably many natural numbers and uncountably many complex numbers). Ordinal algebra, on the other hand, works very differently: if ω is the ordinal that corresponds to countable infinity, then ω+1>ω.
EDIT: I THINK I STAND CORRECTED (lemmy.zip)
I considered deleting the post, but this seems more cowardly than just admitting I was wrong. But TIL something!
Sophie's choice 70s edition (lemmy.world)
Traditional art (i.postimg.cc)
Duh ! (lemmy.world)
27 December 2023 (sh.itjust.works)
help (mander.xyz)
19 December 2023 (sh.itjust.works)
The Circle of AI Life (lemmy.world)
Source: Monkeyuser.com
gatekeeping (mander.xyz)
Plenty of Fish (lemmy.world)
????? (mander.xyz)
What if I like the red flags... (sopuli.xyz)