Are we sure there’s anything “net new” to find within the same old x86 machines, within the same old axiomatic systems of the past?
Math is a few operations applied to carving up stuff and we believe we can do that infinitely in theory. So “all math that abides our axiomatic underpinnings” is valid regardless if we “prove it” or not.
Physical space we can exist in, a middle ground of reality we evolved just so to exist in, seems to be finite; I can’t just up and move to Titan or Mars. So our computers are coupled to the same constraints of observation and understanding as us.
What about daily life will be upended reconfirming decades old experiment? How is this not living in sunk cost fallacy?
Why are static 3D cells going to get us there when other ideas have not? Is it needed to replicate “arbitrary” academic ideas of consciousness (despite our best efforts our models are always approximation) to make a useful machine?
“Living things” are not static designs off the drafters table. They’ll never intelligent from their own curiosity, but from ours and the rules we embed. No matter how hard we push puerile hallucinations embedded by Star Trek. It’s still a computer and human agency does not have to bend to it.
There’s no real point, not in a physical science way
It’s all contrived political points; contracts, socialized norms the elders in charge refuse to negotiate.
The stubbornness and selfishness of the gerontocracy, to serve the dying and dead is gross. Some kind of mental illness fueled by their huffing leaded gas and growing up in world war/Cold War paranoia made it so they cannot escape the idea life is 24/7 militarized economic production.
If you have a suggestion for avoiding that, go for it.
Tribalism seems endemic to humanity though given physical reality sees us dispersed across the globe.
Every attempt at a singular hivemind of social and economic thought has failed as generational churn costs awareness of the origins of a social norm; generational tribalism is even a thing.
How do we defeat physics? Still waiting for those who stare deeply into the machine to answer that. Mathematical generalization of computer behavior is not really upending the time-space continuum but keep staring and believing, I guess.
People can own things != minority of people should own all the things. Gradients, ranges, distributions, not binary.
If it’s so banal it would have no influence but you seem to accept the underlying; “banal” facts have power and social concepts are mutable. So you push back with empty rhetoric, over generalizing others to avoid the powerful fact socialized society is hallucination.
I never criticized “social concepts” either. I criticized our current social concept. Others can be propagated. Your banal attempt to generalize specifics is a lame rhetorical approach where you both accept socialized society as a concept but refuse to debate its specifics (that would require actual effort not just miming money/assets changed hands via paperwork).
May as well browse r/conservative as all HN is ever shipping is fealty to who we say is smart and rich but never requires them to prove it, but requires us to kneel and kiss the rings regardless, as if spoken tradition and written records are real evidence of skill and accomplishment when billions are spent reminding us these things are true.
It’s a laughable generalization that doesn’t hold up in reality. So easy to write words, but so hard to back them up convincingly.