hihi24522
@hihi24522@lemm.ee
- Comment on Thanks angry Italian chef, we're saved! 3 weeks ago:
Garage motor special $100 off? Hooray!
Now if only I could afford a garage…
- Comment on science never ends 3 weeks ago:
Sorry, the point I was trying to make is that we will be able to know if any statement that is testable is correct.
I just wanted to clarify that your initial comment is only true when you are counting things that don’t actually matter in science. Anything that actually matters can be tested/proven which means that science can be 100% correct for anything that’s actually relevant.
- Comment on science never ends 3 weeks ago:
Gödel’s theorem is a logical proof about any axiomatic system within which multiplication and division are defined.
By nature, every scientific model that uses basic arithmetic relies on those kinds axioms and is therefore incomplete.
Furthermore, the statement “we live in a simulation” is a logical statement with a truth value. Thus it is within the realm of first order logic, part of mathematics.
The reason you cannot prove the statement is because it itself is standalone. The statement tells you nothing about the universe, so you cannot construct any implication that can be proven directly, or by contradiction, or by proving the converse etc.
As for the latter half of your comment, I don’t think I’m the one who hasn’t thought about this enough.
You are the one repeating the line that “science doesn’t prove things” without realizing that is a generalization not an absolute statement. It also largely depends on what you call science.
Many people say that science doesn’t prove things, it disproves things. Technically both are mathematic proof. In fact, the scientific method is simply proving an implication wrong.
You form a hypothesis to test which is actually an implication “if (assumptions hold true), then (hypothesis holds true).” If your hypothesis is not true then it means your assumptions (your model) are not correct.
However, you can prove things directly in science very easily: Say you have a cat in a box and you think it might be dead. You open the box and it isn’t dead. You now have proven that the cat was not dead. You collected evidence and reached a true conclusion and your limited model of the world with regards to the cat is proven correct. QED.
Say you have two clear crystals in front of you and you know one is quartz and one is calcite but you don’t remember which. But you have vinegar with you and you remember that it should cause a reaction with only the calcite. You place a drop of vinegar on the rocks and one starts fizzing slightly. Viola, you have just directly proven that rock is the calcite.
Now you can only do this kind of proof when your axioms (that one rock is calcite, one rock is quartz, and only the calcite will react with the vinegar) hold true.
The quest of science, of philosophy, is to find axioms that hold true enough we can do these proofs to predict and manipulate the world around us.
Just like in mathematics, there are often multiple different sets of axioms that can explain the same things. It doesn’t matter if you have “the right ones” You only need ones that are not wrong in your use case, and that are useful for whatever you want to prove things with.
The laws of thermodynamics have not been proven. They have been proven statistically but I get the feeling that you wouldn’t count statistics as a valid form of proof.
Fortunately, engineers don’t care what you think, and with those laws as axioms, engineers have proven that there cannot be any perpetual motion machines. Furthermore, Carnot was able to prove that there is a maximum efficiency heat engine and he was able to derive the processes needed to create one.
All inventions typically start as proof based on axioms found by science. And often times, science proves a model wrong by trying to do something, assuming the model was right, and then failing.
The point is that if our scientific axioms weren’t true, we would not be able to build things with them. We would not predict the world accurately. (Notice that statement is an implication) When this happens, (when that implication is proven false) science finds the assumption/axiom in our model that was proven wrong and replaces it with one or more assumptions that are more correct.
Science is a single massive logical proof by process of elimination.
The only arguments I’ve ever seen that it isn’t real proof are in the same vein as the “you can’t prove the world isn’t a simulation.” Yep, it’s impossible to be 100% certain that all of science is correct. However, that doesn’t matter.
It is absolutely possible to know/prove if science dealing with a limited scope is a valid model because if it isn’t, you’ll be able to prove it wrong. “Oh but there could be multiple explanations” yep, the same thing happens in mathematics.
You can usually find multiple sets of axioms that prove the same things. Some of them might allow you to prove more than the others. Maybe they even disagree on certain kinds of statements. But if you are dealing with statements in that zone of disagreement, you can prove which set of axioms is wrong, and if you don’t deal with those statements at all, then both are equally valid models.
Science can never prove that only a single model is correct… because it is certain that you can construct multiple models that will be equally correct. The perfect model doesn’t matter because it doesn’t exist. What matters is what models/axioms are true enough that they can be useful, and science is proving what that is and isn’t.
- Comment on science never ends 4 weeks ago:
This is false. Godels incompleteness theorems only prove that there will be things that are unprovable in that body of models.
Good news, Newtons flaming laser sword says that if something can’t be proven, it isn’t worth thinking about.
Imagine I said, “we live in a simulation but it is so perfect that we’ll never be able to find evidence of it”
Can you prove my statement? No.
In fact no matter what proof you try to use I can just claim it is part of the simulation. All models will be incomplete because I can always say you can’t prove me wrong. But, because there is never any evidence, the fact we live in a simulation must never be relevant/required for the explanation of things going on inside our models.
Are models are “incomplete” already, but it doesn’t matter and it won’t because anything that has an effect can be measured/catalogued and addded to a model, and anything that doesn’t have an effect doesn’t matter.
TL;DR: Science as a body of models will never be able to prove/disprove every possible statement/hypothesis, but that does not mean it can’t prove/disprove every hypothesis/statement that actually matters.
- Comment on I'm so tired. 4 weeks ago:
Thanks, idk if op needed this but I did
- Comment on [deleted] 4 weeks ago:
Out of curiosity what was the intent of this comment?
- To joke about it being irrelevant for most people to know how to fillet a fish
- To make a troll joke about filleting something ludicrous (like saying “can you post how to fillet a unicorn next?”)
- To make a sadistic joke about killing something that people empathize with more than a fish
- To make a vegan statement about how killing a fish and killing a dog should be seen as equally distasteful (no pun intended) as the murder of a sentient thing
- To ask a question because you legitimately would like to know how to fillet a dog
No judgement, I’m just fascinated by the fact there are so many different reasons someone might post a comment like this.
- Comment on Interesting question I really hadn't thought about 5 weeks ago:
I did not think that was common practice or even a thing anyone would do at all till I was with a girl who told me she called her pussy “Patricia”
The sex was great and she (the woman not “Patricia” lol) is a wonderful person, but I was, and still am, vaguely unsettled by someone naming their genitals…
- Comment on froog 5 weeks ago:
If you put an “i” before the “s” it becomes political content for real for hexbear lol
- Comment on Srsly 1 month ago:
Be born rich, pay others to go through
- Comment on When you count, your lips don't touch until 1 million. 1 month ago:
一 二 三 四 五 六 七 八
8 “ba”
是的，我是美国人。我的文法很不好。
- Comment on High school student uses AI to reveal 1.5 million previously unknown objects in space. 2 months ago:
Valid point, though I’m surprised that cyc was used for non-AI purposes since, in my very very limited knowledge of the project, I thought the whole thing was based around the ability to reason and infer from an encyclopedic data set.
Regardless, I suppose the original topic of this discussion is heading towards a prescriptivist vs descriptivist debate:
Should the term Artificial Intelligence have the more literal meaning it held when it first was discussed, like by Turing or in the sci-fi of Isaac Asimov?
OR
Should society’s use of the term in reference to advances in problem solving tech in general or specifically its most prevalent use in reference to any neural network or learning algorithm in general be the definition of Artificial Intelligence?
Should we shift our definition of a term based on how it is used to match popular use regardless of its original intended meaning or should we try to keep the meaning of the phrase specific/direct/literal and fight the natural shift in language?
Personally, I prefer the latter because I think keeping the meaning as close to literal as possible increases the clarity of the words and because the term AI is now thrown about so often these days as a buzzword for clicks or money, typically by people pushing lies about the capabilities or functionality of the systems they’re referring to as AI.
The lumping together of models trained by scientists to solve novel problems and the models that are using the energy of a small country to plagiarize artwork also is not something I view fondly as I’ve seen people assume the two are one in the same despite the fact one has redeeming qualities and the other is mostly bullshit.
However, it seems that many others are fine with or in support of a descriptivist definition where words have the meaning they are used for even if that meaning goes beyond their original intent or definitions.
To each their own I suppose. These preferences are opinions so there really isn’t an objectively right or wrong answer for this debate
- Comment on High school student uses AI to reveal 1.5 million previously unknown objects in space. 2 months ago:
The term “artificial intelligence” is supposed to refer to a computer simulating the actions/behavior of a human.
LLMs can mimic human communication and therefore fits the AI definition.
Generative AI for images is a much looser fit but it still fulfills a purpose that was until recently something most or thought only humans could do, so some people think it counts as AI
However some of the earliest AI’s in computer programs were just NPCs in video games, looong before deep learning became a widespread thing.
Enemies in video games (typically referring to the algorithms used for their pathfinding) are AI whether they use neural networks or not.
Deep learning neural networks are predictive mathematic models that can be tuned from data like in linear regression. This, in itself, is not AI.
Transformers are a special structure that can be implemented in a neural network to attenuate certain inputs. (This is how ChatGPT can act like it has object permanence or any sort of memory when it doesn’t) Again, this kind of predictive model is not AI any more than using Simpson’s Rule to calculate a missing coordinate in a dataset would be AI.
Neural networks can be used to mimic human actions, and when they do, that fits the definition. But the techniques and math behind the models is not AI.
The only people who refer to non-AI things as AI are people who don’t know what they’re talking about, or people who are using it as a buzzword for financial gain (in the case of most corporate executives and tech-bros it is both)
- Comment on American and British English spelling and pronunciations 2 months ago:
Nope, gen z, and I haven’t actually read any of the Harry Potter books myself.
But you’re on the right track; I think it was reading The Hobbit that did me in lol
- Comment on American and British English spelling and pronunciations 2 months ago:
When I am talking about fibrous material, like individual strands of carbon in a composite, I naturally type “fibre” but when I talk about nutrition or the internet it’s “fiber”
I also tend to spell armor armour and color colour despite being American.
Oh and I write grey instead of gray.
I also catch myself writing units like metre and litre instead of meter and liter sometimes.
It really all depends on if there’s a spellchecker turned on that will tell me I’m spelling things wrong.
- Comment on Caption this. 2 months ago:
Lower two panels of loss meme told with mosquitoes
- Comment on [deleted] 2 months ago:
I grew up in a small Utah town. The only four adults I ever remember hearing admit they were wrong especially when it came to politics or science or religion were my father and three of my high school teachers.
All the rest would literally tell me that the research papers and encyclopedias I tried to cite as evidence were made up by either satan or some government deep state conspiracy. Or they’d say we can “agree to disagree” about shit like animals feeling pain and the flaws in eugenics (I wish I was joking)
Yes, they have always been this stupid. Learning requires accepting when you’re wrong and the vast majority of people I knew growing up saw that as weakness.
I thought it would be different when I got out of that place, and while living in a larger city is better, it’s not better by all that much.
- Comment on Definitely didn't waste half an hour making this 2 months ago:
Already made up my mind and got a rotring 600. Plan to use it till the brass erodes
- Comment on With every exhale, we're smelling the inside of our lungs. 2 months ago:
This is why you can taste/smell saline when it’s injected. Trace amounts of dissolved things (which taste like plastic and metal) in the saline are able to pass through the alveoli in the lungs and evaporate into your breath.
Oddly, I think it’s a similar thing with my ADHD meds because about an hour or two after taking them my breath smells/tastes weird.
- Comment on New social experiment 5 months ago:
nvme0n1p1
- Comment on AND the Expansion Pak 7 months ago:
Y’know, ch-choose a movie or… Or we can watch some interdimensional cable if you want.
We now return to “Nintendo 69.”
Nintendo, oh, what are you doing to me? Oh, Nintendo, oh, Nin…
Or we can watch whatever, y’know.
- Comment on People born after 2000 have never seen the cosmic microwave background on their TV set. 7 months ago:
I was born after 2000 (though not too long after) and this is actually one of my core memories. I think about the sounds of the static and the sound of the CRT turning off.
Also, we had a really old tv in our basement till at least 2008 that had no remote, just knobs and I remember messsing with the “hue” dial all the time trying to figure out how it worked.
The only reason that tv worked so late is that we had a black box connected to the antenna which I later learned was converting the digital signal to analog for the TV.
Also, you’ve just reminded me that I remember the switch from analog to digital. Specifically, I remember watching Elmo talking with some adult on TV about the change. Now I really want to find that video. I think the guy was wearing a suit had short dark hair and glasses. I also think the background was pinkish purple. I want to know how accurate my memories from so long ago are. (I’ll add the link to the video in an edit if I can find it)
- Comment on Metal is plastic. 7 months ago:
Geologically, ice is a mineral, aka a rock. If lava is just rock heated past its melting point, water is lava.