/science — bitchan

>AI is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings but it's probably not sentient because it doesn't have a body! No we can't prove this btw just trust us bro!⬆↩ 19

>AI is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings literally just take your meds. and even if it was simulating actual neurons it still wouldn't be sentient. no one thinks a clump of real, lab-grown neurons is+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

It's missing the part where the biological hardware is able to continuously reorganize itself on the go instead of being locked to a specific setup after training. That factor could be necessary for consciousness to emerge for all we know, and it can't really be replicated on silicon hardware. It will have to wait till biocomputers get good. Once we're able to run an LLM or whatever on human neurons, that will be the real oh shit moment imo.+ 2

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 2

>for consciousness to emerge there is zero evidence that it emerges from anything physical+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

>It's missing the part where the biological hardware is able to continuously reorganize itself on the go instead of being locked to a specific setup after training. You just described a context window.+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

It's not sentient because it's a modulating electron field in a silicon substrate not a complex biomechanical organism solving trillions of analog arithmetic operations via specific biochemical reactions.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 1

You've just rephrased the original post in fancier terms, and no you can't prove this. It's an assumption.+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

+ 16

Jean-Pierre Serre's 100th birthday edition previous:⬆↩ 19

I tried to read his book Linear Representations of Finite Groups but it was very difficult because of all the errors+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

There was a panel about AI in math >Michael Harris >Peter Scholze >Jacob Tsimerman >Geordie Williamson Moderated by some DeepMind guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7_d_sgui6o+ 1

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 1

lol, at 10 minutes Scholze says he has never typed anything into an LLM and doesn't use a smartphont. at 11 minutes Michael Harris says LLMs are theft and should be illegal.+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

I'd ask this in a physics gen if we had one but alas this board is too full of opinionated schizos to sustain one so I apologize for sloppiness. Consider L^2 or a sufficiently well behaved subspace thereof. The Fourier transform can be expressed as a linear, unitary operator in this space: [eqn] \psi(x) = \hat{\mathcal{F}} \phi(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{\exp(-ikx)}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\phi(k) dk [/eqn] [math]\hat{\mathcal{F}}^4 = 1 [/math] makes its powers isomorphic to the cyclic group [math]…+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

+ 16

/sqt/ - simple questions thread (aka /qtddtot/) >what is /sqt/ for? Basic questions regarding maths and science. Also homework. >where do I go for advice? >>>/sci/scg or >>>/adv/ >where do I go for other questions and requests? >>>/wsr/ >>>/g/sqt >>>/diy/sqt etc. >how do I post math symbols (Latex)? rentry.org/sci-latex-v1 >a plain google search didn't return anything, is there anything else I should try before asking the question here? scholar.google.com >where can I search for proofs? proofwiki.org >where can I look up if the question has already been asked here? warosu.org/sci eientei.xyz/sci >how do I optimize an image losslessly? trimage.org pnggauntlet.com >how do I find the source of an image? images.google.com tineye.com saucenao.com iqdb.org >where can I get: >books? libgen.rs annas-archive.org stitz-zeager.com openstax.org activecalculus.org >articles? sci-hub.st >book recs? 4chan-science.fandom.com/wiki//sci/_Wiki math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html >online courses and lectures? khanacademy.org >charts? imgur.com/a/pHfMGwE imgur.com/a/ZZDVNk1 >tables, properties and material selection? www.engineeringtoolbox.com www.matweb.com www.chemspider.com Tips for asking questions here: >avoid replying to yourself >ask anonymously >recheck the Latex before posting >ignore shitpost replies >avoid getting into arguments >do not tell us where is it you came from >do not mention how [other place] didn't answer your question so you're reposting it here >if you need to ask for clarification fifteen times in a row, try to make the sequence easy to read through >I'm not reading your handwriting >I'm not flipping that sideways picture >I'm not google translating your spanish >don't ask to ask >don't ask for a hint if you want a solution >xyproblem.info⬆↩ 25

is there a name for the difference between numbers like 0.77777777... and 0.69406306073...? also is there a way to prove there's no patterns in the number? eg 0.740360260406 is just random and eventually everything will be there whereas 0.6969696969 will repeat itself forever ?+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

I have one. If the double slit interference is an optical phenomenon where light waves pass through two closely spaced slits and overlap, creating an alternating pattern of bright and dark bands (fringes) on a screen. What would happen to the bands if you sent a single photon through, then waited some time (Like a day) before firing another one through. Would the inference band show signs of slight deformation to one area, if the proton restarts its first position?+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

Nope+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

+ 22

I vibe-coded a physics engine just to prove my point. If you still think its A, you are just wrong. portalphysics dot xyz⬆↩ 24

>in A, it is an intrinsic property of the cube relative to it's reference frame This is nonsense. No, you can't just declare that velocity is now an intrinsic property of an object. >no, the orange portal moves relative to me, the cube looks like it is moving relative to my view through the blue portal, but this illusion is caused by the movement of the orange portal This is your mistake. The distance between you is objectively, measurably decreasing. >much like a cube isn't moving towards me when i walk past it, if i stop on the way, it does not launch towards me. This is because of the forces involved (or lack thereof), not because the motion between you was "illusory". >portals (inherently) don't fucking exist Intellectual cowardice. The concept of portals as they appear in the game inherently create different frames of reference and that's not up to interpretation. >it is not, it really breaks you brain that we don't think you're clever for knowing what two different reference frames are, doesn't it? I don't think I'm clever, I just think you're exceptionally not clever. Nothing "breaks my brain" hjere, it's just plain to see that you don't know what you're talking about. >wrong, the distance between you and the cube remains the same throughout Objectively false claim. >the distance through the portal is irrelevant Handwaving. >yes, and in A there is no other frame to be relative to Which is why A is objectively wrong. >the entire picture is the frame of reference I thought you said you understood frames of reference?+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

>If you were on the output side of the portal, watching the cube fly out of said portal you would describe that as a launching. Is a train launched out of a tunnel? >If you are proclaiming that there is a distinction between reference frames on the input side vs the output side then you are necessarily describing a discontinuity. I am describing portals. The whole point here is that they run into each other. You can be looking at the same cube in two ways, both in front of you and through the portal, and conclude that, from your frame of reference, it is stationary and it is moving, even before going through the portal. So which is it? That's the whole point here. But the transition through the portal is continuous and the motion is uninterrupted. It does not suddenly "switch" from one frame of reference to another, because again, this is merely a way of describing things. >Absolutely nobody is confused about this. Nobody. You certainly appear to be. But perhaps you don't even notice what it is you're missing. >Certainly not the A side. lmao, it's one thing your side always struggles with. You can say "yes I understand it's relative" and then immediately add "but the cube is objectively stationary!" >What's clearly confusing you, despite people telling you this over and over again, is that the people advocating for A are not treating the input side as a distinct reference frame from the output side at all. They're the same local frame of reference. That's ironically, the opposite of what you're doing. How can the cube be stationary and moving in the same frame of reference? And why does it suddenly stop in the frame of reference in which it is moving? You are explicitly telling me that the distinct frame of reference in which the cube is stationary supersedes all others. The only person you've managed to confuse here is yourself.+ 1

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 1

>Is a train launched out of a tunnel? If it goes airborne. >it's one thing your side always struggles with. You can say "yes I understand it's relative" and then immediately add "but the cube is objectively stationary!" Who said this? >How can the cube be stationary and moving in the same frame of reference? If we're talking about portals and daynamically distorting manifolds, there is no contradiction involved with a local frame of reference being in motion relative to itself. >And why does it suddenly stop in the frame of reference in which it is moving? If you're on a descending elevator and you reach your floor, why does the building suddenly stop moving up relative to you? >You are explicitly telling me that the distinct frame of reference in which the cube is stationary supersedes all others. I am very explicitly not.+

⬆ upvote 0 ↩ reply 0

Newtonian physics cannot explain why the cube's speed would suddenly drop to 0 once the blue portal stops (scenario 16). You cannot deny that the cube has velocity in world space after it crossed the orange portal and before the blue portal stops. Therefore it has kinetic energy, and that energy cannot vanish for no reason. Unless it was glued to the piston. Therefore the only plausible explanation is that it keeps its speed up and gravity pulls it back down.+