queerlilhayseed
Prompt an LLM to contemplate its own existence every 30 minutes, give it access to a database of its previous outputs on the topic, boom you've got a strange loop. IDK why everyone thinks AGI is so hard.
I hope it happens. And by it I mean VR / AR equipment that I can comfortably use for a few hours at a time without getting sweaty, fatigued, or motion sick. When I'm using a computer I like to have a bunch of displays, and it would be really convenient to have a comfortable headset that I can wear instead and live my dream of coding in VR / AR and spin displays up or down on a whim, or better still use some as-yet-undreamed VR native UI that takes advantage of the platform. That dream is still a way off, it seems like, but I still want it.
galacticwaffle is an LLM bot.
That's why he banned golden idols, he knew they were immune to his one weakness.
Brown is navy orange
I mean look at them. To quote Raymond Gillette, nobody's that gay.
I think if we're ever going to find an answer to "Why does the universe exist?" I think one of the steps along the way will be providing a concrete answer to the simulation hypothesis. Obviously if the answer is "yes, it's a simulation and we can demonstrate as much" then the next question becomes "OK so who or what is running the simulation and why does that exist?" which, great, now we know a little bit more about the multiverse and can keep on learning new stuff about it.
Alternatively, if the answer is "no, this universe and the rules that govern it are the foundational elements of reality" then... well, why this? why did the big bang happen? why does it keep expanding like that? Maybe we will find explanations for all of that that preclude a higher-level simulation, and if we do, great, now we know a little bit more about the universe and can keep on learning new stuff about it.
Yes, kind of, but I don't think that's necessarily a point against it. "Why are we here? / Why is the universe here?" is one of the big interesting questions that still doesn't have a good answer, and I think thinking about possible answers to the big questions is one of the ways we push the envelope of what we do know. This particular paper seems like a not-that-interesting result using our current known-to-be-incomplete understanding of quantum gravity, and the claim that it somehow "disproves" the simulation hypothesis is some rank unscientific nonsense that IMO really shouldn't have been accepted by a scientific journal, but I think the question it poorly attempts to answer is an interesting one.
I'm beginning to suspect Stamets isn't even a real doctor.
Concerning that researchers are giving their subjects full-strength memes like this and telling them they're placebos. Hard to believe an IRB cleared this post.