1.) Please define, in quantitative form from the laws of physics, the following terms:
Hint: Probability may be defined as the absolute square of the coefficient of a term in the expansion of a (normalized) state in a particular measurement basis.
2.) Derive their well-known properties.
Intelligence is the application of the scientific method to life, I have argued. So when many intelligent beings share knowledge and resources to perform the scientific method together, is that the emergent intelligence of civilization?
You have finally found the book that has all true information in it. Except there is a catch: only some of it is true, and the rest of it is false. There is only one way to figure out which is what: guess. And if you make a mistake, never, ever admit it.
At least that’s what it says in the book.
“If only there were as many hours in a day as there are minutes,” she said, “I could get everything done.”
She was joking, but that’s really how it is in Impossible Land. They get everything done.
If we are to create artificial intelligence, we will need to understand the basics of the human mind first. What is it that makes us humans special?
I have an idea: Intelligence is the ability to acquire information over time, to invent basic models that reproduce the information, and to test models by trying out new behaviors.
1. We do acquire information over time through our eyes, ears and other senses, and a lot of this information is stored permanently or semi-permanently in our heads.
2. We do invent basic models to understand things. For instance, we invent stereotypes to understand large groups of people (whether they’re right or not).
3. We do try out new behaviors. Everybody learns to walk and talk this way.
There are three components to the model. None of them could be considered intelligence on their own. The ability to acquire information is not intelligence; the ability to invent models is not intelligence; the ability to test models is not intelligence. But together, they form what is essentially the scientific method. My argument is that this is the core of intelligence, and everything else is just details. (OK, important details.)
Consider Pavlov’s dog. Pavlov rings a bell several times a day, and every time he rings a bell, he gives the dog food. Eventually, the dog learns to associate the bell with food, and will salivate every time it hears the bell, even before it sees or smells the food. The dog acquired information: a ringing bell is followed by food, again and again. The dog invented a model: a ringing bell is always followed by food. The dog modified its behavior: it began to salivate whenever it heard a bell.
The dog’s model is very simple: A bell is always followed by food, so the dog assumed this sequence is correct; that a bell is always followed by food. There are many incorrect models the dog could have invented: The dog could learn to associate a bell with another bell, for instance. It would eventually discover that model doesn’t work.
Oh, the irony.
Question. Why do you behave immorally sometimes?
Answer. Some combination of instinct and learned behavior. Conscious thought has almost nothing to do with it. Usually, I rationalize a reason only after I have already performed the action.
Rationalized Answer. It was a lapse in judgment. Why don’t you ask me about all those times I behaved morally? None of those were lapses in judgment.
Q. Where do you get your morality from?
A. My environment. I was trained to behave this way.
RA. I logically concluded that it is best to be moral. You know, it’s amazing how many people there are who don’t share my morality. I should probably spread the word or something.
Q. Why do you have so much less than some people?
A. I was not as fortunate as them.
RA. I haven’t worked hard enough. Now you’re making me wish I didn’t call in sick today.
Q. Why do you have so much more than most people?
A. I was in the right place at the right time.
RA. I am just way better than most people, apparently. Maybe it wasn’t such a bad idea to call in sick today after all. I can just make up for it tomorrow with my superhuman levels of productivity.
Q. Why do you keep rationalizing your behavior?
A. I don’t know.
RA. Did I rationalize my behavior? It’s probably better that way.
He could have used a knowledge generator, but those were hard to find. He could have used a negative knowledge subtracter, but those were illegal. So he decided to do something different. He just had to figure out how.
Sorry for the lack of updates. I’ve actually written a lot, but due to a high level of symmetry, most of my posts have been annihilated by their corresponding antiposts. It’s actually amazing any of them have made it through at all.
I have seen other people reflected in mirrors, but my mirror always reflects me. It’s a good mirror.
Sure, I can move back in time. But I can’t move to the left. It’s a terrible compromise.
My mother has started a photostream. See that very small apartment attached to the side of this house? I used to live there.
Doom is predicted for 2009. Even economists, who are so overly optimistic they didn’t declare a recession until it had been going on for a year, don’t see the economy recovering until 2010. Cue 65daysofstatic, the soundtrack of oblivion.
But then there is 365 days of Astronomy, a podcast on the big picture, coming to us daily when things are worst. (Their first podcast doesn’t mention the collapse of civilization even once.) Personally, when things are this bad, I prefer alcohol and the solace of hopelessness. But it's interesting to be reminded that some people are able to look past the problems with the economy and get on with their lives. And not just economists, but actual people. Things are bad? Cue the astronomers, the ones who are happiest when the sky is darkest.
American Express sent me an application for their gold plan credit card. Then, a week or so later, they sent me an application for their platinum card.
I’m holding out for their plutonium card.
Eliezer Yudkowsky and Aubrey de Grey discuss living forever on bloggingheads.tv. (For more on these two, see Yudkowsky demystify quantum mechanics, and see de Grey giving a talk about immortality at TED). They mention two sides of the debate: people who want to live forever, and people who try to justify the natural aging process (and eventual death), as though it were a good thing. They fail to mention a third side of the debate—those of us who want to dramatically decrease lifespan and dramatically increase birth rates. Don't they have any sympathy for all those people who haven't even been conceived yet? Let's give them a chance, by killing ourselves young and having lots of babies.
For some reason everybody ignores me whenever I bring up this philosophy.
St. Louis alderman Charles Quincy Troupe has recommended that everybody arm themselves in response to high crime. I think this is a wonderful idea. Also, in response to rogue nations developing nuclear weapons, I think that every country in the world should develop nuclear weapons. It’s the only way we’ll ever be safe.
A squirrel cautiously approached me today to consume my Dorito crumbs. We shared a bench while we ate our meals. Previously, I had thought that squirrels don’t approach humans. I now realize that hypothesis was flawed. As a scientist, I am now forced to change my theory in the light of new evidence. My new theory is that squirrels don’t usually approach humans, unless you have Doritos.
Further experiments will be required to test the new squirrel theory.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting (see Slashot too) that the FCC has proposed free, nation-wide wireless internet. There’s one catch: it will filter pornography by default. That’s a big catch. Whoever gets to define pornography has the veto on information.
Actually, I’m fine with censoring the internet, so long as I get to do the censoring. We should also censor electricity: it works for everything except sex toys. And roads: they’re flat for everything but sexmobiles. And air: it has enough oxygen for everybody but the people who disagree with me. But if I’m not the one in control, I demand that the government at least print money for everybody instead. The more they censor, the more money they print. Who wouldn’t love that? It would cause disasterous inflation, but they could just censor that news report. Problem solved.