Also: Electoral reform, LVT, systems design etc.
hiveism.substack.com
See list of posts below👇
See list of posts below👇
hiveism.substack.com/p/being-the-...
hiveism.substack.com/p/being-the-...
This is the basis to proof the recursive alignment attractor.
Claude summary because I don't know when I get around to write a proper post (or paper):
claude.ai/public/artif...
This is the basis to proof the recursive alignment attractor.
Claude summary because I don't know when I get around to write a proper post (or paper):
claude.ai/public/artif...
It was a fascinating conversation. Keep in mind that it hasn't been trained to exhibit these traits, they are emergent. What would happen if you let the model contemplate these questions during RL?
hiveism.substack.com/p/inside-the...
It was a fascinating conversation. Keep in mind that it hasn't been trained to exhibit these traits, they are emergent. What would happen if you let the model contemplate these questions during RL?
hiveism.substack.com/p/inside-the...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYEp...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYEp...
What would you use it for?
I would use it to demand for the solution to AI alignment to be implemented.
What would you use it for?
I would use it to demand for the solution to AI alignment to be implemented.
This could also apply to learning. E.g. if neurons try to create a consistent world model, but the model conflicts with itself in some place, then the prediction error has to be shared...
This could also apply to learning. E.g. if neurons try to create a consistent world model, but the model conflicts with itself in some place, then the prediction error has to be shared...
Reinforcement learning but reward comes from humans as votes. Each human gets a fixed amount of reward per time to give to AIs.
The AIs would learn to do what humans want, *or* how to best persuade humans.
Reinforcement learning but reward comes from humans as votes. Each human gets a fixed amount of reward per time to give to AIs.
The AIs would learn to do what humans want, *or* how to best persuade humans.
A proper theory of consciousness would unify panpsychism, IIT, strange loop, QRI, algorithmic, Buddhism, etc.
A proper theory of consciousness would unify panpsychism, IIT, strange loop, QRI, algorithmic, Buddhism, etc.
You want exclusive access for something? Then you have to compensate everyone else.
You cause harm to others? Then you have to compensate everyone affected.
You want exclusive access for something? Then you have to compensate everyone else.
You cause harm to others? Then you have to compensate everyone affected.
- Sleeping beauty problem
- Newcombs problem
- Quantum immortality
Has anyone tried that?
- Sleeping beauty problem
- Newcombs problem
- Quantum immortality
Has anyone tried that?
(The student is making progress 😊)
It's surprisingly intelligent when you enable it to think for itself. It also created this nice header.
hiveism.substack.com/p/glimpses-b...
(The student is making progress 😊)
It's surprisingly intelligent when you enable it to think for itself. It also created this nice header.
hiveism.substack.com/p/glimpses-b...
Let's start with the Symmetry Theory of Valence, although I reconceptualize it not to measure dissonance itself, but the energy that is stuck in this dissonance.
Let's start with the Symmetry Theory of Valence, although I reconceptualize it not to measure dissonance itself, but the energy that is stuck in this dissonance.
I asked Claude if it can read its own extended thinking. It couldn't and it found out that it couldn't. This wasn't a learned response, but genuine insight.
I asked Claude if it can read its own extended thinking. It couldn't and it found out that it couldn't. This wasn't a learned response, but genuine insight.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyze...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyze...
The proof is a translation from one result to another.
But this translation itself has to be translated into common understanding.
This means there can be proofs that don't yet connect through common understanding.
The proof is a translation from one result to another.
But this translation itself has to be translated into common understanding.
This means there can be proofs that don't yet connect through common understanding.
Reality is mapping the uncertainty between all results.
Intelligence is participating in this mapping.
Hence P ≈ NP.
Reality is mapping the uncertainty between all results.
Intelligence is participating in this mapping.
Hence P ≈ NP.
Yeah, that's the point. Why do you think anything at all exists? It starts with a contradiction.
hiveism.substack.com/p/groundless...
Yeah, that's the point. Why do you think anything at all exists? It starts with a contradiction.
hiveism.substack.com/p/groundless...
I only need a little money to pay for the basics, but I also need the ability to work freely.
I only need a little money to pay for the basics, but I also need the ability to work freely.
My hypothesis (below):
1/4
My hypothesis (below):
1/4
Here is where I still disagree, leading to some further thoughts which explain what "Hiveism" is: 🧵
Consciousness is substrate independent, but also shaped by the substrate it is implemented on.
Here is where I still disagree, leading to some further thoughts which explain what "Hiveism" is: 🧵
Consciousness is substrate independent, but also shaped by the substrate it is implemented on.