Although that feels like an overly simplistic example to the point of not being not being a helpful example, I agree that the amount of tokens to encode the watermark is so low in text, that it wouldn't take much to erase or distort it.
But why? Why are the rules of the universe consistent? What orders them? These are some of the most baffling questions in philosophy. This is even more of mystery if you take non-theist interpretation of the universe. If all possible universes (including ones with changing rules) are equally probable, then what are the odds that we would be in both a universe with simple rules such that the elegant mathematical models referred to the in the paper have such predictive power and the rule are not changing over time. This is one of those papers that is massively under appreciated by people who do not study philosophy.
> then what are the odds that we would be in both a universe with simple rules such that the elegant mathematical models referred to the in the paper have such predictive power and the rule are not changing over time.
Could conscious life capable of asking such a question evolve in a world with volatile rules?
Also, math spots patterns. It makes sense that we would spot patterns with it. But these patterns could either be just a tiny slice or an extremely high abstraction of reality.
Supposs Earth is visited by a bunch of friendly aliens. They're eager to explore our oceans, and for some reason a magnetic crane is their favorite tool for scientific inquiry. They drop the magnes into the ocean and pull out heaps of metal junk. They conclude that the ocean floor is made up exclusively of metal junk, and then they use the distribution patterns of that junk to come up with coherent explanations for all sorts of observable phenomena.
I guess what I'm saying is: you can only see what you can see. There could be loads that we won't discover any time soon because it's undiscoverable with a math mind.
A sibling comment to my reply made the point already about deterministic not being simple, so let me address your first point that there could be a filter causing it.
First, a disclaimer. I'm a theist. I like arguments like the so-called "modal ontological argument" and find them convincing. That said, I love explore philosophy especially non-theistic positions because I'm already convinced of theism.
Second, your arguing that there is a filter, and, yes, I agree that one of the possible explanations is a filter. But just asserting that filter with a simple claim as the original commenter did dismisses what is a fascinating exploration of why? How do we know that's a sufficient filter. How do we know that volatility prevents life from existing and asking the question? Is it not possible that there is a volatility that preserves our existence. When your dealing with infinite possible "worlds" this paper becomes more interesting.
Third, if I could put on my non-theist hat (and do it without my biases affecting me), it seems that discoveries such as those made in the paper require non-theist explanations to depend on the existence of a multiverse.
Fourth, there is something else that always get's missed. In a non-theist philosophical framework that forces us to consider all logical possible worlds and universes there is no restriction that a universe begin in a simple state such as a singularity that causes a big bang. A universe can logically begin to exists in an infinite set of states. And again, if every possible universe is equally probable. Why should we be in a universe where what we see can be logically extrapolated backwards to imply that there was a history that follows the mathematical models that we construct. Even a life filter like what you suggested is not capable of answering why we should end up in such a universe. That's a deep and fascinating mystery to be explored.
> Also, math spots patterns.
> ... you can only see what you can see. ... undiscoverable with a math mind.
It's not that we believe that we have a math mind. It's that we believe that we have logical minds. Math is just one part of the abstract domain of logic. I agree that there are limitations to our ability to observe and limitations with the capacity (storage depth and processing depth) of our brains. If our brains can be trusted then they are logical, and nothing illogical can exists. It seems to me like this is a very hard argument for you to make.
The article makes a more subtle point. You can still have deterministic physics but not necessarily explained by simple math equations. For instance, physics could have worked through small algorithms with results that can't be captured in elegant math equations like E=mc2.
You don't have enough information to simulate and predict what goes on in an arbitrary 10 cubic cm part of your tissues for an arbitrary purpose (things are different if you had sensing instruments and are satisfied measuring something easily measurable for that purpose). Doctors can't predict, either. Yet many lives could be greatly improved it we were able to do this cheaply.
But you and I have ignored all that and are blind to all these things that are part of reality that you still don't have knowledge of, or abide by mathematics. If we simply put our attention to the parts of experience that have order that can be described by maths and blind ourselves to everything else, then sure, maths seems very powerful.
I think your conflating emergent behavior that results from complex physical states / arrangements of matter with the surprisingly simple laws of physics which can be modelled with mathematics and are the foundations that such complex emergent behavior operate according to. Discoveries since the paper was created have not changed that.
1. what makes you confident that the rules of particle physics alone can lead to a perfect simulation of macroscopic phenomena? (as you call it "emergent behavior")
2. what makes you confident that our universe is not "turtles all the way down", that as soon as we develop more precise and powerful instruments we will discover new "fundamental phenomena" that requires new theory? This has happened before where neat Newtonian physics was found to fail at edge cases detectable by more precise instruments.
3. considering that we have no feasible way of snapshotting a 1 cubic inch of the world, and even if we have done that, no feasible way of simulating its dynamics at the qft level for one second, and yet we have "approximate" physical theories with less invasive instruments that can do that (for specific purposes), is the ideology of calling macroscopic phenomena an emergent behavior of particle physics still relevant? In a similar bent, there exists a Starbucks in certain places in the world, and there does not exist a Starbucks in other places. This is a fundamental truth of the present world, and many peoples' lives are oriented around that and affected by it. Nevertheless, it cannot be precisely predicted by mathematics where there exist Starbucks and where there does not exist Starbucks one year into the future.
4. I hope you can see that just as Newtonian physics was useful for describing an approximation to the world but still fails at giving knowledge about sufficiently complex systems and sufficiently small scales, you now see that likewise particle physics is just an "effective lens" for a particular genre of human activity.
> 1. what makes you confident that the rules of particle physics alone can lead to a perfect simulation of macroscopic phenomena? (as you call it "emergent behavior")
Given the general axiom of science that the same experiments under the same conditions will yield the same results, I do think we can trust the standard model because of how successful it has been at matching real world tests. That doesn't mean that the standard model is "correct" or complete--we know that we still don't have a quantum theory of gravity--only that model is amazingly predictive, which is all that we could ask of a mathematical model. There are also philosophical explanation of quantum physics that need to be factored in (Copenhagen, many-worlds, pilot wave).
All that said, I think your mixing up the need for a perfect simulation with the fact that the currently understood quantum level interactions of matter and space produce produce the lions share of influence at the larger macroscopic levels. The fact that medical science has been massively successful at using our understanding of chemistry and physics to explain so much of what we know about the details of the body is evidence of how amazing our understanding already it, even if it's not perfect.
> 2. what makes you confident that our universe is not "turtles all the way down", that as soon as we develop more precise and powerful instruments we will discover new "fundamental phenomena" that requires new theory? This has happened before where neat Newtonian physics was found to fail at edge cases detectable by more precise instruments.
All of physics is dying to be the one who discoveries the next level or foundation or theory of everything in physics. No disagreement there, but if that next level turns out to be indescribable with simple mathematical models as is the case with the currently understood quantum level, then that make the effectiveness of relatively simple mathematical models at the quantum level and in relativity/Newtonian physics all the more astounding. How amazing it would be that the complexity would produce such elegance. That would answer one of the whys that we wish to answer!
> 3. considering that we have no feasible way of snapshotting a 1 cubic inch of the world, and even if we have done that, no feasible way of simulating its dynamics at the qft level for one second, and yet we have "approximate" physical theories with less invasive instruments that can do that (for specific purposes), is the ideology of calling macroscopic phenomena an emergent behavior of particle physics still relevant? In a similar bent, there exists a Starbucks in certain places in the world, and there does not exist a Starbucks in other places. This is a fundamental truth of the present world, and many peoples' lives are oriented around that and affected by it. Nevertheless, it cannot be precisely predicted by mathematics where there exist Starbucks and where there does not exist Starbucks one year into the future.
"...is the ideology of calling macroscopic phenomena an emergent behavior of particle physics still relevant?" How did this become an ideology? That said, yes, even with all that said, the effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences is still amazing. How the universe came to have it's current arrangement is a fascinating question with it's own mysteries, but that doesn't take away from the points about the effectiveness of mathematics.
"Nevertheless, it cannot be precisely predicted by mathematics..." The ontological naturalists would push back on that claim. Although, I do my best to explore naturalism under it's own terms and conditions, I'm a theist who believes that humans have a soul. For that reason I would agree that we cannot predict such a scenario because there are inputs from outside the physical universe. That said, if we are just talking about physics only, it would be an assumption on your part that it cannot be precisely predicted by mathematics.
> 4. I hope you can see that just as Newtonian physics was useful for describing an approximation to the world but still fails at giving knowledge about sufficiently complex systems and sufficiently small scales, you now see that likewise particle physics is just an "effective lens" for a particular genre of human activity.
I think my other comments have addressed this. Thank you. I enjoy these discussions & debates.
I'm sorry, I cannot continue this conversation. To do so we need an intense back-and-forth that this format is too asynchronous to provide. Either that, or I will need to spend hours trying to anticipate your responses and address them, and I am not sufficiently motivated to do that. I can state my position succinctly in that my view on science and knowledge is very close to philosophical pragmatism.
Maybe I'm wrong, but with the advances in AI, SO was in for a major reduction in usage not matter how good they were about enabling the community and encouraging collaboration. I realize that your mileage my vary with modern AI, but the AI has an immediacy and interactivity that together are impossible for SO to overcome. At this point their best option might be to find a way to pivot to an AI based interface while still trying to find a way to reward and leverage the expertise of people. Even with that I suspect it's too little, too late.
I think so too, but many people have many oppositions to AI and would prefer knowledge to be in the hands of knowledgeable community, rather than AI companies. SO was poised to be this alternative, but leadership showed they did not see value in knowledge-work for its own sake.
But SO had already been acquired by PE when LLMs went mainstream, so I doubt they would have made any strategic growth bets rather than trying to squeeze all the monetization they could out of the site.
This seems like the most likely answer to me - though we all have our grievances with SO, the culture likely didn’t contribute to its decline as much as simply AI being a better tool.
And in some ways AI "search" works like SO - you ask a question, you get an answer. If you don't understand the answer or something in the answer you ask for clarification and it provides it. And you don't have to wait a day or a week for it. (Ofcourse, the AI gets it answers from human curated info pools like SEs, pirated books etc ... but if these sources shrink / die to AI, it may not be able to provide new and current information, and we'll be back to SEs and Reddits and HNs again).
I'm glad the article acknowledges that flashcards are just one small part of learning. When I first got into spaced repetition, first with the Mnemosyne Project and later switching to Anki, I discovered that the efficiency I imagined was partially illusory.
* Memorizing things often takes much more time than learning things naturally as you use them because it takes extra time out of your day.
* I often lacked the associations that would normally help reinforce a concept or fact because I used brute force a-single-super-simple-concept-at-a-time memorization instead of more natural methods where context helped me gain a better understanding.
* Breaking things down into very narrow, simple, one concept cards is more difficult than I imagined.
* Creating mnemonics is really helpful but can be time consuming, and you don't know which cards where you will need them until you repeatedly forget those cards. Someone on HackerNews about a year or two ago recommended using AI and that did help a little, but it didn't take long before I realized that the AI created mnemonics feel so similar and less connected than time tested mnemonics that I find them less effective.
* Since brute force memory is slower I often learn slower, which is less efficient than learning a groups of related things together at a pace where the concepts together give you a better understanding than learning one at a time. (Sometimes you need to slow down because your not getting the concept, but going too slow is less efficient also.)
I still use spaced repetition but I realized it's not the amazing revolution that I first imagined that it would be.
Memorizing becomes easier after understanding. My guess is understanding things, not just what they mean, but how they work, or interact with other concepts, speeds up repetition quicker because that is what's firing when renewing it.
I think that's a good observation (your mileage may vary), but the time that flashcards are the must needful is when your first learning. Yet my first Chemistry university professors pointed out that, although most people imagined it was easiest to get started in a new field and harder to learn when you made it to me advanced classes, in fact, it's hardest to get started when the concepts are new and foreign and easier later when your just adding a deep understanding to what you have already fought to learn.
> it's hardest to get started when the concepts are new and foreign and easier later when your just adding a deep understanding to what you have already fought to learn.
This is quite true; I feel this is the case with maths. Simple math, logic math is all fine, but higher maths and theorems I find very, very difficult to understand. Here this is one of the few areas where my memorizing techniques did not work well. Sure I can remember many things, but applying that knowledge is very different to just memorizing stuff.
I'm curious if there's anyone who studies these types of things who knows how common it is to have such overly ambitious plans for an IPO. I don't personally have enough context to know how much of an outlier this is. I'm also wondering if at this point any investors with the kind of money Elon is after really think that the the plan is rock solid so much as they are betting on Elon's ability to make a company worth a lot of money for investors.
betting on Elon's ability to make a company worth a lot of money for investors
It all depends on how you define "worth".
Is Tesla "worth" a P/E ratio of 385? I personally don't think so --- not based on the fundamentals, not based on their actual performance in the marketplace.
Maybe what investors are really betting on is Elon's ability to convince people to pay these sort of outlandish prices for a stock with poor fundamentals.
In other words, they're betting on his ability to promote a new fantasy similar to the one he has been successfully selling for 2 decades.
Why does science need to be through the government? Irrespective of the proposal, science research is just as open after this change as before so long as it's funded by private citizens who can control the channels through which they donate to this work.
On the other hand, if we can't get private citizens to donate to science research, then they are not likely to vote for it either--polls don't register much of a concern from the average citizen*. I don't think most of us want to be under a dictator or go back to having a king.
That means the only practical option is to act of our own volition and support science through vocal advocacy and private money. In this way, we can each donate to the research we care about the most with maximum academic freedom.
It was realized some time ago that having citizens decide to "donate to the research we care about" was not the most efficient way to get the most important research done. So we switched to a system where we pool our resources (taxes), and then use a somewhat complex process (described in TFA) to decide how to allocate them to possible research.
You're missing the key distinction here: not only are the seeds selected by a political body, but the active weeding of previously planted seeds is now inherently political.
Both are bad, but one allows some diversity; the other produces a monoculture.
A political monoculture that can be completely upended before even any useful crop is grown, given the nature of a working democracy versus the length of research projects.
And yes, I'm aware that those last two words are no longer guaranteed.
Given the apparent low levels of scientific literacy among the U.S. public, I can’t imagine their ability to discern priorities or worthwhile lines of investigation would be any more useful than a coin toss. Or worse.
Everyone knows that many things that are not directly beneficial to society would go unfunded because humans optimize for what’s around them, and things that are self-interested.
There isn’t even alignment. One person wants to fund science, the other wants to fund high speed rail, the other wants farm subsidies, one wants social security and the other wants the military. Government balances all of that together. Of course people will make value judgements about their pet interests and declare the other aspects to be better funded separately.
>Private citizen fund scientific research [under threat of prison or deadly force.]
I mean I'm not inherently opposed to laws or government, but I think a lot of people need to be more measured and considerate of what they are using tax money for when it is being taken from their fellow citizens at gunpoint.
ignoring a gratuitous reference to use of force, absolutely. having a discussion as society about what we are funding is in fact democracy. sadly there is an issue in the sciences in that lay people may have difficulty seeing the benefit of connecting the dots. but we should try. and as flawed as it is, the adversarial system we have in the US is at least a forum for those discussion.
using grep to defund grants that contain words we don't like is the exact opposite of measured and considerate. so is punishing scientists for the sin of working for a 'woke' institution. in fact all this seems extremely punitive, and not in the spirit of optimizing outcomes for costs at all.
note that this policy explicitly removes the requirement to provide any kind of rationale. that sort of directly contradicts the notion that this is a measured discussion about priorities.
I agree. This administration is ground zero for mismanagement of funds and outright corruption. Just look at the director of the FBI and former secretary of DHS. Both have used and continue to use tax payer money for personal use. It should make every tax payer livid.
It does make me livid, just as much as the waste of taxpayer money on pointless (and sometimes outright racist) research here makes me livid: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48335722
Believe it or not, it's possible to hate both Kash Patel/Kristi Noem and the unelected bureaucrats burning tax money on awful research.
Sure that’s fine. They funded research that you think is wasteful and you would like to have tools to provide that feedback. The issue with this OMB change is that it is not that. The OMB change is a change that allows the administration to cancel any grant for any reason without answering to citizens about it.
BTW your “believe it or not” is quite condescending. Do you talk to people in real life like that?
So you want every decision in government to be made by a politician instead of an expert? We should start with the military right? Get those bureaucrats generals out of the battlefield and put some elected officials in charge of our battle plans so our plans aren’t wasting tax dollars!
Again, the status quo is that funding recommendations are made by expert peer review by PhD scientists. Political appointees literally do not have the knowledge to make the calls this policy directs them to.
That’s even worse, the incentives are completely misaligned for a political appointee vs unelected civil service workers who are just carrying out their jobs.
It means I'm in the tax bracket that gets to pick up the slack for people who make way more than me but don't pay their fair share.
I want a competent government who directs the funds in an appropriate way. Not one who sets up a shush fund, using my (tax) money, to pay their private army of thugs.
Private capital is good at funding research that is likely to provide a short-term return on investment. It's not so good at funding basic research, where most of the paradigm-shifting breakthroughs come from. These provide a huge return on investment, but it nets out to society at large on time scales of decades or centuries.
Contrary to what you said, there is actually quite a bit of private philanthropic funding for research, it's just that it's not evenly distributed. The vast majority of it seems to go to medical research, in particular cancer and Alzheimer's. That's obviously a good thing, but my point here is that we can't necessarily depend on private philanthropy to distribute funds optimally.
I'm generally a fan of Cato and a libertarian approach to economics, but I'm still not convinced that we should be spending zero public money on basic research. I would like to see a decent amount going into mathematics and theoretical physics for example, and I doubt those fields would stay afloat on donations.
This seems to be a good middle ground then. It allows for a way to prevent political projects getting grants under the guise of "scientific research", at least when they directly oppose the voters. I don't see any push to defund basic research, and if politicians start doing that there's at least a way for people to voice their disapproval through voting.
Aside from that, so much money was wasted on Alzheimer's research based on fraud.
It takes me little more than a second to open a chat session with an AI. I spend way more time asking my question that pulling it up. All I have to do is type two characters in my address bar the browser knows which URL I want. That's like VI command speed. Two letters... <Enter>... the website loads within a second, the chat text box is focused and I make my request.
That's a great point. I'm guessing the politicians knew the rich would find a work around, but they're obligated to go through the outward motions so they can claim to keep their promises.
I hate this headline. It may not be a strategy you like. It may not accomplish what the strategists want to accomplish. But it's almost certainly a strategy that really smart people spent a lot is time thinking about.
A lot of the discussion talks about how China can just develop it's own. But there's more to it. Development isn't free. China has to expend lots of resources, resources that can't be used somewhere else. Maintaining a chip making sector comes with challenges and it's not clear whether China can maintain it competitively through the long haul without paying an outsized price.
Some people think that the US could have cut off China if and when they used the technology to wage war, thereby being "more strategic" about it. But that to can be a dangerous game, and that strategy might not accomplish what it's intended to accomplish.
I like vi/vim, but it gets me all too frequently because I'm not precise enough of a typist. I'm busy typing away and I hit the wrong modifier key or hitting caps lock and I end up pulling things up or making changes that I never intended to make. Worse, in the split second after it happens and my muscle memory tries to correct it my immediate intuition of what mode I was in is wrong or which modifier key I'm pressing or caps lock is on and I only make the situation worse. Any improvements in performance because of the quick key interface are long gone.
