this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2026
20 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
2744 readers
140 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While doing research on our friends, I found (a disowned Reddit comment which found) another banger from the guy who pointed out that pinball is too chaotic for superintelligences to predict (discussed previously, on Awful): whole-bird emulation requires quantum mechanics, or "WBE requires QM" for short. Apparently WBE was a minor meme inside the community at some point, but I'm not sure who first noticed the situation. In short, birds with certain chemicals in their eyes may have the ability to sense magnetic fields due to QM effects. (I'd normally recommend WP on this, but the relevant article is bizarrely skeptical about the situation, although it does include a decent diagram.) As such, our friends consider the possibility that their vaunted superintelligence tasks (ancestor simulations, Newcomb predictors, etc.) are harder than WBE, which itself is much harder than e.g. cracking classical cryptography with Shor's algorithm or some other not-yet-reached quantum-computing task. The author left a great sneer in the comments:
Ro-ro-rotate your model of the bird, rotate your model of the bird for science!
I'm starting to think that simulating the future and past based on a single picture of a falling apple might be a little difficult.
Oh, but for a Bayesian super intelligence it'd be easy!
That's actually true in a way: Bayes theorem and (actual science-oriented, rather than bullshit handwavey) statistics involving it are about how conditional probabilities interact, including, overly simplified, how to get from prior probabilities (what i find how probable before looking at data) to posterior probabilities (what i find how probable conditioned on data).
Basically what it means to throw "Bayesian" into the word soup (because a stew requires more substance) is that the fairy tale is not about some blank slate figuring out everything from minimal data and first principles, but that it's about a model that starts accurately and doesn't have to adjust much (because otherwise by necessity it'd need more data - otherwise it's not Bayesian).
God I hate this
Basically: if it's Bayesian, the less data you put in, the closer you remain to what you started with. It's not magic.
Maybe I should put in the effort and make a full post some day
Here's that falling apple thing so that it might be referenced in the full post: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message
I totally remembered the claim wrong. Forgive me for I am after all mere human and not a Bayesian superintelligence:
I wonder how many webcam frames were needed for the ancestor simulations; given that we're all actually digital copies in Newcombian-basilisk-hell™ without realizing it.
These people love to feel sciencey but hate the actual science part where you have to look and look elsewhere and readjust and suddenly learning more takes generations of time and material investment instead of handwaving wildly
Yep, so many of their favorite tropes and assumptions fail when an actual expert breaks them down. Like their belief in the possibility of Drexler-style nanotech has been taken down quite firmly several times (here is a good takedown that got posted to the EA forums), Drexler's ideas pretty firmly ignore how things actually work at the molecular level...
Damn, and here I was all ready to download some tasty chicken and start fattening it up in MAME (Multiple Avian Maturation Emulator)