Re: [sl4] Complete drivel on this list: was: I am a Singularitian who does not believe in the Singularity.

From: Mu In Taiwan (
Date: Tue Oct 13 2009 - 13:24:05 MDT

I'm quite frustrated with JC's inability to:
- Respond to criticism productively, rather than simply quote small parts
selectively and assert 'bullshit' or "like hell it doesn't" etc. as a form
of response, describing suggestions from other posters as "total crap"
and "incredibly idiotic"without giving a clear explanation of why this is
that case.

- Maintain a position consistently.

- Provide definitions of the vocab he's using, or present any
proof/reasoning to support the truly gigantic claims he is making about
future human ability to produce minds and the vulnerabilities they will

- Apparent pride in his ignorance, and inconsistence within paragraphs:

quote: "but I don't give a hoot in hell what Unix says,
it can't produce true random numbers either." ... (then seconds later) ...
"Perhaps the Mac does have such a separate gadget nowadays, I don't know nor
do I much care.

- Lacks the ability to even read his own writing, apparently. Example:

> The halting problem is not what you think it is. As far as I am aware,
> is quite possible to show that *some* algorithms will or will not halt"

"No shit Sherlock, if it were not true *all* algorithms would be useless."
> 2. Absolute rubbish. There are algorithms and heuristics that are used
> despite our inability to predict their run-times accurately."

JC: "What I was saying was that if no algorithm halted then all algorithms
would be useless."

--- JC, can't you realise that what you actually said (a claim about our
ability to prove things and the consequences) and what you claim you said (a
claim about behaviour of algorithms and the consequences) are different?

Also. besides asserting "minds" are subject to the limits of turing
machines, JC asserts that infinite loops are the biggest problem in AI.
"> Since this seems to have degenerated into talking about infinite loops"
"Why "degenerated"? it you're taking about AI nothing is more important."
So here is a simple request for evidence. General purpose computers have
been in use for over half a century. Therefore, JC, please provide samples
of real world computers or computer programs that have been trapped in an
infinite loop for more than say, 5 years. If this problem is as serious as
you imagine it to be, i.e. the most important challenge for AI, then this
evidence should be trivial to provide in abundance. On the other hand, if
you can't provide the evidence... well... an infinite loop that cannot even
last 5 years does not seem very... infinity-ish. Nor very threatening.
I expect that you will simply ignore this request and instead selectively
quote small parts of my message with phrases such as 'bullshit', as before.
p.s. I note that in addition to having the physical 'true' randomness
capabilities that you deny the existence of, my Mac also has some ability to
detect programs that have gone into some forms of deadlock or loop, and have
stopped responding to signals from the OS. It labels such programs 'not
responding'. Quite remarkable really, given that you seem to imagine it is
Also, if you would like a sample of data from my Mac's /dev/random device,
to test it for a statistical lack of randomness, then I would be happy to
provide it. Alternatively, we could have a competition: I will provide you
with a sample of data from my Mac of the length you desire, and you can
predict the next 50 outputs? I expect that you will not take up this
challenge, as the tone and content of your posts suggest that you are not
merely ignorant, you are willfully ignorant.
Is there a system on this mailing list to remove trolls? I am leaning
towards the suggestion of a previous poster, that this forum might benefit
from being moved to a web-based system like LW where disruptive material can
be dealt with more effectively.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:04 MDT