That’s “Werwolf the Apocalypse” plot line if I ever saw one.

Newsome keeps trying to reach out to younger voters, but it’s always in such… performative ways. It’s never him listening or signaling he concurs on issues they care about.

It always feel like an effort to inform them that he exists, become a familiar figure, as if the issue that Democratic candidates have been having was lack of visibility.

But the issue is a misalignment of values and goals, not that people haven’t seen them get interviewed on a popular platform. Visibility will rise on new media as they adopt talking points and positions that align with the bases values, just forcing them selves in to these places without changing their stances is going to just make them a laughing stock.

Like you could maybe reengineer the systems and prioritize reliability, but like, that’s expensive, you’re not just doing plug and play at that point. There are also concerns about higher failure and error rates from cosmic rays and stuff. Like they could keep it inside the magnetic field and keep the orbit out of the van allen belts, but, the ISS does that and they still need specific ruggedized computers and quad backups for even normal usage.

Like, it’s going to need more maintenance and upkeep than a normal data center would, with higher turn over of parts, OR, redesigning all the parts to be ruggedized and super redundant, which is a whole other new cost to add to everything else.

Hell NASA still uses a ruggadized Variant of power PC CPU straight out of 2000 Mac’s on their beyond earth probes because ruggedizing a modern chip is just to much effort and work.

The issue not that it’s technically possible, the issue is that it’s an extra, complex, heavy, and maintenance requiring system.

Ultimately the issue is the tyranny of the rocket equation. That amount of cooling surface would be stupidly heavy, like that’s a huge payload on top of the huge payload of the solar panels and compute. Like, the ISS is 420 tons, and it has a max power output of 240 kw. The ISS has to be assembled in orbit and was a monumental undertaking and technical challenge.

They’re not going to do something an order of magnitude larger than that, the capacity to launch and assemble something like that does not exist. Building that capacity would require an Apollo style generational effort.

This is a very obvious and desperate attempt to keep attention and hype up. To throw out an uplifting and technically impressive proposal to distract from the reality that the tech industry has collectively set a trillion dollars on fire.

He put out a video a few weeks back basically endorsing Mamdani.

There is a whole field of mathematics built around proving something is not computable. The paper is saying that a simulation of the universe is non-computable problem.

The jist of this paper is that it’s not possible to computer a simulation of a universe. Like, there is no sequences of arithmetic or logical operations that could do it, and they’re providing proofs to that effect.

It’s not worth considering as a real possibility until a plausible pathway by which it could be done is presented. Not even like, a practical pathway, just something that could theoretically accomplish the task.

This paper is just saying that computers could not even theoretically do the task. There is no possible sequences of arithmetic or logical operations that could do it. And a computer is definitionally a machine that carries out sequences of arithmetic or logical operations.

More compute power than the entire universe could provide.

Ok, but we have no observations that would lead us to believe it is possible to do, let alone lead us believe it is likely the case. So it stays a thought experiment, not a plausible explanation.

Saying that the universe could be a simulation, when we have no evidence for that assertion is the same as saying “god could have made the universe”

Like, we can’t prove that isn’t true, but why they hell would I believe it’s a reasonable possibility if there is no evidence suggesting it as a possibility.

And more specifically the cult of AI and the singularity.

The thing is that some people took it as proof and have built their assumptions about the world on that.

This is paper is dispelling the idea that it’s even a plausible thought experiment.

we have no reason to believe that a universe could be simulated. No proven plausible pathway by which that could be accomplished.

That doesn’t prove it is not possible, you cannot prove a negative. It just means that we have no reason to believe it could be true.

If you find it an interesting thought experiment, then no reason not to think about it, but it should have no baring on anyone’s decision making or assumptions about the world.

It’s a disproval of a specific theory, that if it was possible to simulate a universe that in turn could do the same, then there is probably an infinite series of simulations. And since it would be very unlikely that we’d be the first in the series, then we’re probably a simulation as well.

It’s also equally unlikely that we’d be the last simulation in an infinite chain, so if we can’t simulate a universe, we’re probably not a simulation ether.

If we can’t do it here, then the main point of the simulated universe thought experiment is void.

The argument being roughly that, if we could simulate a universe, and it could do the same, it would likely lead to an infinite chain of universe simulating other universes. In such a case, it would be highly unlikely that we just happened to be the first one in the chain, thus it would be likely we are a simulation in turn.

But it’s equally unlikely that we happen to be the last simulation in an infinite chain. So we’re probably not a simulation

if We cannot simulate a universe on a computer then the argument for why we would be a simulation is removed in turn, by the logic of the thought experiment.

Since the jist of the argument is that if it was possible, there would likely be an infinite number of simulations simulating each other up and down a chain, and in an infinite series it’s unlikely we’d happen to be the one at the top of the chain. It’s also equally unlikely that we’re at the end of an infinite chain.

So, if we can’t simulate here, no reason to believe we are a simulation in turn. Just like how there is no reason to believe in an as yet unobserved teapot floating between here and mars.

Computers are defined as machines that preform a series of arithmetic and logic operations.

The point being that this kind of math is not capable of simulating a universe. If it did something else, it wouldn’t be a computer. It would be something else.

As has been made very clear, it is not actually possible to prevent these models from regurgitating any information they’ve been trained on, no matter how fancy the system prompt. So, if there is NSFW content In the training data, users will always be able to access it, not matter how “compliant” the company is with restrictions on NSWF content by way of system prompts.

They can have their cake and eat it to, many users will prefer the models because of their ability to do porn stuff, and they will not be held legally liable for that since they’ve done everything they possible could.

So long as no one proves that they did in fact intentionally train the models on a shit ton of porn …

I think some department or team lead was told by higher ups that they needed to “implement AI” and are just trying to find places to shove it so they can tell the boss they hit the metrics.

The reason they turn stuff like this on by default without asking creators or users is probably because previous things that were implemented and made optional all got turned off and not used, meaning it didn’t help the department or team hit their metrics for usage of the systems.