I suppose I disagree with the formulation of the argument. The entscheidungsproblem and the halting problem are limitations on formal analysis. It isn’t relevant to talk about either of them in terms of “solving them,” that’s why we use the term undecidable. The halting problem asks, in modern terms—

Given a computer program and a set of inputs to it, can you write a second computer program that decides whether the input program halts (i.e., finishes running)?

The answer to that question is no. In limited terms, this tells you something fundamental about the capabilities of Turing machines and lambda calculus; in general terms, this tells you something deeply important about formal analysis. This all started with the question—

Can you create a formal process for deciding whether a proposition, given an axiomatic system in first-order logic, is always true?

The answer to this question is also no. Digital computers were devised as a means of specifying a formal process for solving logic problems, so the undecidability of the entscheidungsproblem was proven through the undecidability of the halting problem. This is why there are still open logic problems despite the invention of digital computers, and despite how many flops a modern supercomputer can pull off.

We don’t use formal process for most of the things we do. And when we do try to use formal process for ourselves, it turns into a nightmare called civil and criminal law. The inadequacies of those formal processes are why we have a massive judicial system, and why the whole thing has devolved into a circus. Importantly, the inherent informality of law in practice is why we have so many lawyers, and why they can get away with charging so much.

As for whether it’s necessary to be able to write a computer program that can effectively analyze computer programs, to be able to write a computer program that can effectively write computer programs, consider… Even the loosey goosey horseshit called “deep learning” is based on error functions. If you can’t compute how far away you are from your target, then you’ve got nothing.

This is proof of one thing: that our brains are nothing like digital computers as laid out by Turing and Church.

What I mean about compilers is, compiler optimizations are only valid if a particular bit of code rewriting does exactly the same thing under all conditions as what the human wrote. This is chiefly only possible if the code in question doesn’t include any branches (if, loops, function calls). A section of code with no branches is called a basic block. Rust is special because it harshly constrains the kinds of programs you can write: another consequence of the halting problem is that, in general, you can’t track pointer aliasing outside a basic block, but the Rust program constraints do make this possible. It just foists the intellectual load onto the programmer. This is also why Rust is far and away my favorite language; I respect the boldness of this play, and the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

To me, general AI means a computer program having at least the same capabilities as a human. You can go further down this rabbit hole and read about the question that spawned the halting problem, called the entscheidungsproblem (decision problem) to see that AI is actually more impossible than I let on.

Computer numerical simulation is a different kind of shell game from AI. The only reason it’s done is because most differential equations aren’t solvable in the ordinary sense, so instead they’re discretized and approximated. Zeno’s paradox for the modern world. Since the discretization doesn’t work out, they’re then hacked to make the results look right. This is also why they always want more flops, because they believe that, if you just discretize finely enough, you’ll eventually reach infinity (or infinitesimal).

This also should not fill you with hope for general AI.

Evidence, not really, but that’s kind of meaningless here since we’re talking theory of computation. It’s a direct consequence of the undecidability of the halting problem. Mathematical analysis of loops cannot be done because loops, in general, don’t take on any particular value; if they did, then the halting problem would be decidable. Given that writing a computer program requires an exact specification, which cannot be provided for the general analysis of computer programs, general AI trips and falls at the very first hurdle: being able to write other computer programs. Which should be a simple task, compared to the other things people expect of it.

Yes there’s more complexity here, what about compiler optimization or Rust’s borrow checker? which I don’t care to get into at the moment; suffice it to say, those only operate on certain special conditions. To posit general AI, you need to think bigger than basic block instruction reordering.

This stuff should all be obvious, but here we are.

The thing that amazes me the most about AI Discourse is, we all learned in Theory of Computation that general AI is impossible. My best guess is that people with a CS degree who believe in AI slept through all their classes.

The issue will have to be litigated, but… A lawyer once told me that there aren’t really “lawsuits” so much as “factsuits.” The actual judgment in a trial comes more down to the facts at issue than the laws at issue. This sure looks an awful lot like IBM strong arming people into not exercising their rights under the license agreement that IBM chose to distribute under. If it is ever litigated, it isn’t hard to imagine the judgment going against IBM.

Wouldn’t surprise me.

I’m pretty sure this article is a really bad attempt at satire. Or if there is a point, maybe it’s that… the fact that there have been things in the past that are not just fads (like SQL), that means that current things that are fads (like blockchain) are in fact not just fads?

Ah, le fumé monsieur.

When I was looking at conspiracy theories about the submarine, this was basically the metatheory. That they’ve so heavily brainwashed us that we can read something like this and go, yeah that seems realistic.

Is it better or worse that I think someone made this by hand?

The best part about Bayeux Tapestry memes is, the Bayeux Tapestry itself came pre-memed. For example, this section has a naked guy in the margin for, I’m pretty sure, absolutely no reason at all.

What else are they gonna put in their tailpipes?

Of course, they’d charge you $300 for having to make the effort.

They should just start posting rules. You know, screenshots of laws, photos of stop signs, warning labels…

Even apart from that, it implies that a sixth grader is not only a gay furry, but he has no problem letting his teacher know he’s a gay furry.

I think not caring about being cool only amplifies preexisting coolness. An entitled boomer isn’t gonna become cool just because they’re even less self-conscious about their obnoxious opinions.

The actual goal of political economy should be the well-being of the people. Price stability can be a means to that end, but it can also diminish standards of living. Certainly, price stability is not an end in itself.

To clarify what I mean, this current inflationary period is being caused by transient supply disruptions. They’ll clear up on their own. Apart from Japan, what are the central banks of the world doing? They’re trying to throw their economies into recession. Because of transient inflation that was not caused by runaway demand.

It’s tricky to talk about actual gold standard days, since economic data aren’t very reliable that far in the past, but historical accounts don’t exactly paint a rosy economic picture. Whether there was price stability, I’m really not sure, but I do know there was mass unemployment, frequent economic crises, and widespread poverty.

Finally, the Eurozone… Their recession following the global financial crisis lasted longer than other advanced economies, because the Stability and Growth Pact is the opposite of sensible economic administration. Indeed, Europe is in a downward binge-purge spiral of—crisis happens, better ignore excessive deficit rules and let the ECB buy sovereign debt at its discretion; well the crisis is over, time to fuck up European economies again; oh no there’s another crisis, better ignore the SGP again.

At some point I might have to leave the US, so it’s a shame that Europe isn’t a viable alternative.

Nothing has inherent value. Inherent value shouldn’t be confused with practical value. Anyway, while gold has some practical value nowadays, being a corrosion resistant electrical conductor doesn’t explain why people wanted gold more than a hundred years ago. Thinking there’s something special about gold that makes it valuable irrespective of social beliefs or practical uses is just… the world’s least interesting religion.

The fact is, money has value because it’s the only thing that can be used to pay taxes. So for the next level, I’ve never quite understood what “social construct” means. Is being punched for cosplaying a Nazi a social construct? Not the justification, but the fist, is the fist a social construct? Is being harassed by the IRS because you’re a sovereign citizen who uses self-issued Freedom Dollars and doesn’t believe the Sixteenth Amendment was duly ratified so income taxes are illegal, is the harassment from the IRS a social construct?