Mielin
Joined 8 months ago
Karma
2
Submissions
4
Member since
Mar 10
Recent submissions
Comment · 3 months ago
Comment · 4 months ago
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a1/fb/66/a1fb663d7d2942c1988d...
If you put a cup of water in a strong enough gravity, lower part of the cup will have higher pressure, and that part will turn to unusual ice types. While top of the cup will remain liquid. Cranking up a gravity will only change the ratio. This is why people use pressure instead of gravity, pressure is what defines the state.
Your main point is something like "material becomes weak compared to gravity, conforms to the cup, as if liquid", or "cant have long range structure". But we already have solids that are like that - sand. Sand doesnt resist change to its shape, it just slides in a new position. And yet we still consider sand to be solid. Angle of a pile in particular.
Even a neutron star likely has surface level irregularities on a scale of centimiters. While a liquid can flow to submicron level smoothness even in a diy experiment.
Material gets stronger as pressure is increased. Unusual crystal structure becomes available. Superconductors and some other weird properties can exist only when crystal structure is compressed. And this tendency continues all the way to degenerate matter, as in neutron stars. Material from inside of a neutron star is likely the strongest a material can be in this universe.
So in the end, "solidness" continues to fight back, presenting enough properties to differentiate it from a true liquid, even if it could look somewhat similar, "shallow pile of material", all the way to degenerate matter of neutron stars.
Comment · 8 months ago
Robot vacuum is allowed to crash into things and is still quite useful. You add bumpers, maybe some sort of proximity sensors to make the crash less damaging. It is safe by construction - cant harm humans because it is too small.
Things have improved a bit? Now robot shelves becomes a possibility. Map everything, use more sensors, designate humans to a particular area only. Still quite useful. It is safe by design of areas, where humans rarely walk among robots.
Improved further? Now we can do food delivery service robot. Slow down a bit, use much more sensors, think extra hard how to make it safer. Add a flag on a flagpole. Rounded body. Collisions are probably going to happen. Make the robot lighter than humans so that robot gets more damage than the human in a collision. Humans are vulnerable to falling over - make the robot hight just right to grab onto to regain balance, somewhere near waist hight.
Something like that... Now I wish this would be an actual progress requirement for a robo taxy company to do before they start releasing robo taxies onto our streets. But at least we do it as mankind, algorithm improvements, safety solutuon still benefit the whole chain. And benefit to humanity grows despite it being not quite good enough for one particular task.
Comment · 8 months ago
Im curious to see the whole list of languages you tried, and result with each. I suspect it was related to finding suitable library for each problem (usb, graphics) more so than the language itsel. But maybe ecosystem is what we need from a language.
Why would you think LLMs are not conscious? Maybe a link to an article that is aligned with your views? That would help me understand your viewpoint.
Are dogs conscious? Maybe not, or a bit so. LLMs are more conscious than dogs.
LLM are deficient in certain memory aspect - particularly a gap between the generation cycle and the context window. So they seem forgetful. But people with memory loss or damaged hypocampus are still conscious. LLMs are dumb in certain aspects, do weird errors, but we still agree that dumb people with weird errors are conscious.
Theory wise thinking is likely substrate independent. Unless you think that biological tissue holds some life force that allows to transend comoutation limitations somehow.
Thats probably not what you wanted to read, Im aorry. Just really curious in how do you reconcile all of this.