Humans have wondered at "unknowability" since at least Socrates.
Thompson got us a non-trivial jump along the way further in 1984.
Yet we never drew the precise boundary til today...
It's fine though. I'll just sit here with a critical piece of the puzzle. Don't mind me. I will wait, but we will have this discussion.
I'll just enjoy my permanent underclass in the meantime. Wouldn't want any of that VC money to fund actual science.
I'd love to tell you all about this by the way, but unless you're a pop scientist working at an AI firm, grifting the public on moralism and safety, it takes about a year before you can talk about your findings.
Humans have wondered at "unknowability" since at least Socrates.
Thompson got us a non-trivial jump along the way further in 1984.
Yet we never drew the precise boundary til today...
Being on here again not even a month it's pretty clear these algorithms are a very thick psyop to either try to get you to take part in the false dichotomy of the day, or at least resign yourself from otherwise engaging with any sort of nuance.
Good job humans 💩
@C2IRIS A few years ago we were tagging your sentiment with #nocrypto, the point being that systems aren't secure if the cryptography isn't actually secure. You're better off not using cryptography then using it and falsely thinking your secure.
The funniest timeline
Here is our company.
It loses tens of billions of dollars.
It requires hundreds of billions more in compute.
The technology may fundamentally transform humanity.
There is also a non-zero chance it kills everyone.
How many shares would you like?
@2Philosophical_ Given that it obscures any hope of measuring its output against our intent, this is actually technically true and cannot be worked around.
The labs rhetorically preach about alignment while doing the precise opposite of what someone who cares about alignment would do.
You cannot talk about probabilities with an air of scientific authority, until you actually have a body for your function.
Certainly we shouldn't be paying people to do this.
@sophianovo_@2Philosophical_ Precisely yes, very well put.
I should add, my motivation is to diffuse the false dichotomy that pits otherwise very smart people against one another.
I think that's going to do more harm than good at approaching a solution for the unprecendented problems we now face.
@wispem_wantex To ignore the budding priesthood is to empower them. Yes they do not typically represent the cutting edge of the field, but they are there, typically enforcing beauacracy. Neither of you are wrong, in other words.
@sophianovo_@2Philosophical_ An exhaustive model is necessary to put the question to rest. Not to discuss plausibility. The "simply can't" is if it is true. It's another way of stating the poshulate itself, a truism, essentially.
Only this time we're starting to gain some evidence for the former. E.g.
Huh, M., Cheung, B., Wang, T., & Isola, P. (2024). The Platonic representation hypothesis. Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2024). arXiv:2405.07987
Jha, R., Zhang, C., Shmatikov, V., & Morris, J. X. (2025). Harnessing the universal geometry of embeddings. arXiv:2505.12540
Faizal, M., Krauss, L. M., Shabir, A., & Marino, F. (2025). Consequences of undecidability in physics on the theory of everything. Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, 5(2), 10–21. https://t.co/2lljdIO5dy.…
What this means for consciousness directly is not fully determinant until we have the aforementioned model. But it does satisfy plausibility in my definition.
@sophianovo_@2Philosophical_ I think "some non-trival empirical evidence exists" would suffice.
We are really returning once again to the argument of Platonism vs. materialism.