Obviously it would be AI-complete. I didn't know that term, that's what I meant by currently impossible to code. I just learned my favorite term ever, thanks for that!.
Although disappointing, you seem to have the correct answer for my question.
Nice insight you brought with the CPU and the standard libraries being a relevant factor, hadn't thought of that.
Your thought experiment sounds more like a "codec" than a procedural generation. I guess it is an arbitrary line given that we are using CPU, etc. But the bigger the decompressing "model" the further away from true 4k compression we are.
I suspect that if at all possible to have an algorithm that can generate the seeds plus the process to expand them, then that algorithm would take orders of magnitude longer to run then there would be practical in any meaningful time scale.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious, but the question is:
Could procedural generation be used to achieve amazing compression rates given a currently impossible to code algorithm?
I hate geoblocking, but looking trough the site I only felt like facepalm. It's the same as poverty sucks so let's give 1000$ a month to everybody and somehow where the money will come from will be figured out by someone.
At first glance I think they would take off and be airborne. Other than that they would do whatever they were programmed to do.
I know, my comment is stupid, thought I should fit in.
Maybe we can use this comment as a place to give our best guesses for to the percentage of liars on the internet.
How many of the people claiming to have clicked a button few minutes / hours after it was out and having spectacular irreversible consequences to their lives is just a phony?
I would say between 40% and 90%, but don't know better than that.
Yeah, that's definitely a possibility. What you describe is more or less the basic property/side effect I was talking about, but much better explained.
You're betting evolution is not that good. One can also bet it better than you can possibly imagine. I don't think you can be sure either way at this point, but your argument seems to be the most compelling at this point!
> Why do we say homosexuality is primarily genetic if evolution is true?
In my opinion it must be to help the fitness of the community they live in. The communities with low likelihood to spawn a gay person are (were?) much more likely to go extinct. It can also be a basic property (side effect?) of the sexual appeal arms race.
There is also the case of suicides, when they happen to young people that hasn't reproduced yet. It can also be argued its for the benefit of the community.
So the thesis is that the primary force in evolution is not individual's fitness but it is the community's fitness.
Seemed stupid, but I had to read, as I couldn't possible imagine what would the author come up with to justify how an automated "rule based" predictable system can cause more congestion that chaotic humans...
On that note, I think the author forgot to mention the noise disaster it will be when everyone sends their cars driving around the block at night while they sleep. (yay, some extra garage space)