https://pivottoai.libsyn.com/20250817-ai-doomsday-and-ai-heaven-live-forever-with-ai-god - podcast
19 minutes, sit yourself down for this one
text version https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/08/17/ai-doomsday-and-ai-heaven-live-forever-in-ai-god/
https://pivottoai.libsyn.com/20250817-ai-doomsday-and-ai-heaven-live-forever-with-ai-god - podcast
19 minutes, sit yourself down for this one
text version https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/08/17/ai-doomsday-and-ai-heaven-live-forever-in-ai-god/
Yeah, even if computers predicting other computers didn’t require overcoming the halting problem (and thus contradict the foundations of computer science) actually implementing such a thing with computers smart enough to qualify as AGI in a reliable way seems absurdly impossible.
To be entirely honest I don’t even like the arguments against EDT.
Smoking lesion is hilarious. So theres a lesion that is making people smoke. It is also giving them cancer in some unrelated way which we don’t know, trust me bro. Please bro don’t leave this decision to the lesion, you gotta decide to smoke, it would be irrational to decide not to smoke if the lesion’s gonna make you smoke. Correlation is not causation, gotta smoke, bro.
Obviously in that dumb ass hypothetical, the conditional probability is conditional on the decision, not on the lesion, and the smoking in cancer cases is conditional on the lesion, not on the decision. If those two were indistinguishable then the right decision would be not to smoke. And more generally, adopting causal models without statistical data to back them up is called “being gullible”.
The tobacco companies actually did manufacture the data, too, thats where “type-A personality” comes from.