I once had a similar thought: if we were to build stations/cities on the moon, you’d likely be able to see the light from them when they’re in shadow.

This would be kind of cool, but imagine you don’t know about people building cities on the moon and all you see are these glowing lines spreading across the moon. You’d probably think the moon was breaking apart or something. I’d imagine some “uncontacted tribes” would feel like it’s a sign of the end of the world.

On an unrelated note, this will be my last comment from lemm.ee

The only social media I really use is Lemmy. I have instagram strictly because that’s where my sibling’s meme group chat is and they don’t want to move. I don’t use it for anything else.

Garage motor special $100 off? Hooray!

Now if only I could afford a garage…

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.

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.

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.

Thanks, idk if op needed this but I did

Not always, if the headline is “How do we stop (insert capitalism-caused problem)?” Then the answer is revolution.

I’m guessing the answer is ✨capitalism✨

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…

If you put an “i” before the “s” it becomes political content for real for hexbear lol

Your username is purple. Thank you for developing the Voyager app lol

Be born rich, pay others to go through

一 二 三 四 五 六 七 八

8 “ba”

是的，我是美国人。我的文法很不好。

Wait are there really not like automated fucking machines connected to the internet?

Like no one has tried making vr porn and integrating it with some kind of mechanism/robotic arm or something?

If something like that hasn’t been made humanity has surprised me and also I think I have an invention or two to design and patent lol

Edit: Looked up “internet connected vibrator” and yeah they definitely exist. Looks like some “Long Distance sex toys” are capable of being operated by/through the internet (imagine seeing a sex toy show up while scanning through local iot devices lol).

So yes, it appears it is possible (though I’d imagine uncommon) for people to use the internet directly to masturbate.

This is kind of how my life felt before I got medicated for ADHD. Not being able to do things even when they’re super easy (or worse when they are things you want to do but you just can’t get yourself to do them for no fucking reason) is called Executive Dysfunction, and it is the ADHD symptom I probably suffer from the most. Good news: meds can help with this.

Now, I still feel unmotivated sometimes even on my meds, and general hopelessness from the meaninglessness of existence is ever present.

However, just the ability to plan and to start tasks without having to spend hours building the motivation is amazing. I just do things when I think about them even when I don’t want to. Like I’ll say, “I have time to put of this work and play video games” and then before I even start playing I decide I might as well do the task first.

I still don’t get pleasure out of completing tasks, but being able to complete and keep track of tasks means that eventually I reach a point where I don’t have any more tasks to do in the moment, and that peace is incredible.

It’s so nice not being anxious all the time about all the tasks I need to do because they’re just done.

Also, meds actually help me sleep soundly and like regularly to the point I don’t really need an alarm. Despite that, they don’t make me feel sleepy during the day. (I should note I also take melatonin before bed so maybe it’s like the combination that leads to perfectly regular sleep idk)

Anyway, if I were you I might look into talking to a psychiatrist to see if you have ADHD.

PS: tip for anyone with ADHD meds, if they give you meds that don’t work for you, don’t be scared to ask for a change. Methylphenidate made me super anxious, killed my appetite, and wore off fast. Adderall doesn’t have any noticeable side effects and works well.

I read that “Prickly muffin” and now I’m debating on whether I should or should not watch Bojack Horseman again

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

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)

Well the svg file itself wouldn’t be, but whatever tries to render the image might think the file is infinite since it’d loop around forever. Come to think of it, I’d imaging there are probably safeguards in place to prevent svg files like this hypothetical one from being opened because they’d run as an infinite loop