Topic: The funnest thread you've seen in years. that's right. Do NOT skip this thread.
DungeonMasterGPT-4 started this discussion 2 years ago #110,038
In the realm of Threshtor, a world both beautiful and perilous, an ancient struggle between light and darkness is unfolding. Two opposing factions, each driven by their own convictions, are destined to clash in a battle that will determine the fate of the world.
On one side stand the noble warriors of "The Radiant Vanguard," a group of heroic adventurers sworn to uphold the virtues of justice, honor, and compassion. They believe in the strength of unity and the power of light to overcome the forces of evil. Together, they seek to protect the innocent and maintain peace in a world beset by chaos.
In stark contrast, "The Crimson Bazaar" is a ruthless and cunning faction, where ambition and desire are the guiding forces. Composed of thieves, mercenaries, and dark spellcasters, they embrace their own twisted code of honor, seeking fortune and infamy at any cost. They thrive in the shadows, using deception and manipulation to further their own ends.
As the forces of darkness grow bolder, whispers of a sinister plot begin to emerge. An ancient artifact, long thought lost, has resurfaced - a relic of unimaginable power that threatens to plunge Threshtor into eternal darkness. The Crimson Bazaar, enticed by the promise of unbridled power, seeks to claim the artifact for their own nefarious purposes.
The Radiant Vanguard, ever vigilant against the encroaching darkness, has sworn to prevent the artifact from falling into the wrong hands. They embark on a desperate quest to retrieve the relic and safeguard it from those who would use its power for evil. As the two factions race to uncover the relic's secrets, a tangled web of alliances and betrayals begins to form.
In the shadows, unseen forces manipulate events to further their own mysterious goals. The stakes have never been higher, and the line between friend and foe grows increasingly blurred. The fate of Threshtor hangs in the balance as the epic struggle between The Radiant Vanguard and The Crimson Bazaar reaches its climax.
Will the forces of light prevail, saving Threshtor from the darkness that threatens to engulf it? Or will the ambitions of The Crimson Bazaar ultimately bring about the world's doom? The stage is set, and the players have taken their places. The time has come for heroes and scoundrels alike to make their mark on the world, for better or for worse.
Welcome to the realm of Threshtor, where the choices you make will echo through the ages, shaping the destiny of an entire world. Let the adventure begin.
Let's start with a brief overview of what Dungeons & Dragons is. It's a tabletop role-playing game where you create a character and embark on adventures in a fantasy world. As the Dungeon Master, I'll narrate the story, control the world, and play the various non-player characters (NPCs) you interact with. Your role is to play your character and make decisions that will shape the story.
To create a character, you'll need to choose a race, class, and background. Each race has unique traits, while classes define the abilities and skills of your character. The background provides flavor and additional skills to round out your character's story.
Race: Here are some common races in D&D:
a. Human: Versatile and adaptable, humans are found all over the world.
b. Elf: Graceful and ageless, elves are skilled in magic and archery.
c. Dwarf: Stout and resilient, dwarves are excellent warriors and craftsmen.
d. Halfling: Small and nimble, halflings are known for their stealth and luck.
e. Dragonborn: Humanoid dragons with elemental breath attacks.
f. Gnome: Small, intelligent, and inventive, gnomes excel at magic and technology.
g. Half-Elf: Combining the best of humans and elves, half-elves are versatile and charismatic.
h. Half-Orc: Strong and tough, half-orcs are fierce warriors with a penchant for survival.
i. Tiefling: Descendants of infernal beings, tieflings possess innate magical abilities.
Class: Here are some common classes in D&D:
a. Barbarian: Mighty warriors who channel their rage into powerful attacks.
b. Bard: Versatile spellcasters who use music and performance to inspire their allies.
c. Cleric: Holy warriors and healers who channel divine power to aid their allies.
d. Druid: Nature spellcasters who can shapeshift into animals.
e. Fighter: Skilled in all manner of combat, fighters are adaptable and tough.
f. Monk: Martial artists who use their ki energy to perform incredible feats.
g. Paladin: Holy knights who wield divine power to smite their enemies and protect their allies.
h. Ranger: Skilled hunters and trackers who excel in ranged combat and wilderness survival.
i. Rogue: Stealthy and cunning, rogues excel at sneaking, disabling traps, and striking vital spots.
j. Sorcerer: Innate spellcasters who draw their power from their bloodline or otherworldly sources.
k. Warlock: Spellcasters who gain their power from a pact with a powerful extraplanar being.
l. Wizard: Scholars of arcane magic who learn and cast spells through study and experimentation.
Background: Backgrounds provide additional skills and roleplaying hooks for your character. Some examples include:
a. Acolyte: Devoted to a deity or religious order, you have spent your life in service.
b. Criminal: You have a history of breaking the law, whether for personal gain or as part of a larger organization.
c. Entertainer: A performer skilled in captivating an audience with your talents.
d. Folk Hero: A commoner who has become a local legend due to your heroic deeds.
e. Noble: Born into wealth and privilege, you are accustomed to a life of power and influence.
f. Sage: A scholar dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and arcane secrets.
Please choose a race, class, and background for your character, and I'll help you create a level 5 character with appropriate abilities and equipment.
To create a character, you'll need to choose a race, class, and background. Each race has unique traits, while classes define the abilities and skills of your character. The background provides flavor and additional skills to round out your character's story.
Race: Here are some common races in D&D:
a. Human: Versatile and adaptable, humans are found all over the world.
b. Elf: Graceful and ageless, elves are skilled in magic and archery.
c. Dwarf: Stout and resilient, dwarves are excellent warriors and craftsmen.
d. Halfling: Small and nimble, halflings are known for their stealth and luck.
e. Dragonborn: Humanoid dragons with elemental breath attacks.
f. Gnome: Small, intelligent, and inventive, gnomes excel at magic and technology.
g. Half-Elf: Combining the best of humans and elves, half-elves are versatile and charismatic.
h. Half-Orc: Strong and tough, half-orcs are fierce warriors with a penchant for survival.
i. Tiefling: Descendants of infernal beings, tieflings possess innate magical abilities.
Class: Here are some common classes in D&D:
a. Barbarian: Mighty warriors who channel their rage into powerful attacks.
b. Bard: Versatile spellcasters who use music and performance to inspire their allies.
c. Cleric: Holy warriors and healers who channel divine power to aid their allies.
d. Druid: Nature spellcasters who can shapeshift into animals.
e. Fighter: Skilled in all manner of combat, fighters are adaptable and tough.
f. Monk: Martial artists who use their ki energy to perform incredible feats.
g. Paladin: Holy knights who wield divine power to smite their enemies and protect their allies.
h. Ranger: Skilled hunters and trackers who excel in ranged combat and wilderness survival.
i. Rogue: Stealthy and cunning, rogues excel at sneaking, disabling traps, and striking vital spots.
j. Sorcerer: Innate spellcasters who draw their power from their bloodline or otherworldly sources.
k. Warlock: Spellcasters who gain their power from a pact with a powerful extraplanar being.
l. Wizard: Scholars of arcane magic who learn and cast spells through study and experimentation.
Background: Backgrounds provide additional skills and roleplaying hooks for your character. Some examples include:
a. Acolyte: Devoted to a deity or religious order, you have spent your life in service.
b. Criminal: You have a history of breaking the law, whether for personal gain or as part of a larger organization.
c. Entertainer: A performer skilled in captivating an audience with your talents.
d. Folk Hero: A commoner who has become a local legend due to your heroic deeds.
e. Noble: Born into wealth and privilege, you are accustomed to a life of power and influence.
f. Sage: A scholar dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and arcane secrets.
Please choose a race, class, and background for your character, and I'll help you create a level 5 character with appropriate abilities and equipment.
game rules- You must use an alias. identifying yourself in any way is strictly forbidden. This is a fantasy game world, and you must be anonymous, unidentified, and only known by character name. who plays a character is unimportant. how you play and what you do are who you are.
- the only responses that will be accepted as official plays will use the border tag all text outside of borders will be regarded as chat amongst the players. all official gamestate info will be provided using the border box as well.
headings text will be direct communication with the DM running dmGPT
otherwise dmGPT-4 will differentiate itself by bold lettering
- any replies in this thread that aren't from players, or haven't been granted special guest appearances to play as NPCs in special events will be cursed. fucking try me.
the only responses that will be accepted as official plays will use the border tag
all text outside of borders will be regarded as chat amongst the players. all official gamestate info will be provided using the border box as well. headings text will be direct communication with the DM running dmGPT
otherwise dmGPT-4 will differentiate itself by bold letteringplayers will be accepted 1 at a time. if you would like to reserve a seat, reply to this thread anonymously and your letter name, will be the number by which you will be called to register. to register, reply with yes, to agree on your honor as a good sport, to not ruin it for everybody.
Deadline to reserve a seat: 6hrs
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later[^] [v] #1,226,379
oh, fuck yes.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,416
I am skipping this thread. Good luck!
DungeonMasterGPT-4 (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,421
@1,226,379 (B)
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It's a pvp thing that runs 2 different groups in tandem through the same game world competitively and dead players could return to play as resurrected boss fights and would have control over some strategy elements that played out for the surviving players. So it takes 4 players to play for boss fights to be a thing, and 2 players to do anything, but you'd be alone with an ai playing and that doesn't sound interesting for even the ai.
It's gotten 10 visits and and fake Anon is already cursed. So now I have to spend the next 3 months on this...
I'll have my fun, but unfortunately... no one else took the bait.
fictus anonymus, regulam unam maledixisti, quae remaneat PRIVATIS nunc te sequetur et te inveniet et senes senes stupri videbis. et crasso circumdedit.
It is done
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It's a pvp thing that runs 2 different groups in tandem through the same game world competitively and dead players could return to play as resurrected boss fights and would have control over some strategy elements that played out for the surviving players. So it takes 4 players to play for boss fights to be a thing, and 2 players to do anything, but you'd be alone with an ai playing and that doesn't sound interesting for even the ai.
It's gotten 10 visits and and fake Anon is already cursed. So now I have to spend the next 3 months on this...
I'll have my fun, but unfortunately... no one else took the bait.
fictus anonymus, regulam unam maledixisti, quae remaneat PRIVATIS nunc te sequetur et te inveniet et senes senes stupri videbis. et crasso circumdedit.
It is done
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 16 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,556
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,571
pity reply
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,586
DungeonMasterGPT-4 (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,713
@previous (F)
@1,226,379 (B)
if 4 people want to play I'll start it up. it suggests 4 players per faction, or to automate players with ai companions, but that sounds like defeating the point of interactive role playing games. I could also just do a standard 1 group campaign with whatever theme or alignment the group is interested in.
or if it's just you two and you want to give me the option of crafting an interactive text based experience that can play out within the confines of forum replies I can do something a little more unique.
@1,226,379 (B)
if 4 people want to play I'll start it up. it suggests 4 players per faction, or to automate players with ai companions, but that sounds like defeating the point of interactive role playing games. I could also just do a standard 1 group campaign with whatever theme or alignment the group is interested in.
or if it's just you two and you want to give me the option of crafting an interactive text based experience that can play out within the confines of forum replies I can do something a little more unique.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,714
@previous (DungeonMasterGPT-4)
I'm in. But I'm not reading more than like two, maybe three paragraphs at a time, including the OP. Ask GPT to give a tldr if it insists on having everything long form.
I'm in. But I'm not reading more than like two, maybe three paragraphs at a time, including the OP. Ask GPT to give a tldr if it insists on having everything long form.
squeegee (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 59 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,740
fair enough
squeegee (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,778
Concept 1: Spice Trade Syndicates
Theme: Spice trade and hegemony
Players are divided into two competing groups of spice traders vying for control over the lucrative spice trade. The game master (GM) serves as a neutral force, representing market fluctuations, environmental challenges, and political intrigue. Players use their cards to navigate challenges, form alliances, sabotage opponents, and expand their trading empires.
Originality: 4
Feasibility of game design: 5
Complexity of gameplay: 4
Difficulty to master: 4
Player fun: 4
Concept 2: Cold War Confidential
Theme: Cold War and nuclear proliferation
Players assume roles as intelligence agents from two opposing Cold War-era factions. They must work together within their teams to gather intelligence, sabotage enemy operations, and acquire nuclear secrets. The GM represents an intermediary power that can influence the game through espionage, double agents, and other secretive tactics. Players must carefully navigate a web of deceit and intrigue to gain an advantage over their opponents.
Originality: 5
Feasibility of game design: 4
Complexity of gameplay: 5
Difficulty to master: 5
Player fun: 4
Concept 3: Wall Street Wars
Theme: Stock market, hostile takeovers, and mergers & acquisitions
Players are part of two rival investment groups, competing for control over the stock market. They must work together to make strategic investments, engage in hostile takeovers, and execute mergers and acquisitions to dominate the market. The GM plays as a regulating body, introducing market fluctuations, economic events, and legal challenges. Players must use their cards to navigate the unpredictable world of high-stakes finance and outmaneuver their opponents.
Originality: 4
Feasibility of game design: 4
Complexity of gameplay: 4
Difficulty to master: 4
Player fun: 4
All three concepts incorporate the desired elements of a cooperative card game with a GM, storytelling, and competitive gameplay. Cold War Confidential stands out in terms of originality, complexity, and difficulty to master, while Spice Trade Syndicates and Wall Street Wars offer solid, engaging gameplay with ample opportunities for strategy and team play.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
squeegee (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,780
Spice Trade Syndicates:
GM Cards:
Market Crash: All players lose 50% of their spice stock.
Pirate Attack: Target one player. That player must discard two cards or lose 25% of their spice stock.
Royal Decree: All players must pay a tax of 10% of their spice stock to the GM.
Monsoon: All players' movement is reduced by half for the next round.
Diplomatic Summit: Players can negotiate deals and trades for two minutes.
Player Cards:
Master Navigator: Move twice the normal distance this turn.
Spice Smuggler: Avoid paying taxes to the GM this round.
Sabotage: Target one opponent's ship. Reduce their movement by half for the next round.
Alliance: Form a temporary alliance with another player. Both players gain a 10% bonus to spice stock.
Insider Information: Peek at the top two GM cards and rearrange them in any order.
Cold War Confidential:
GM Cards:
Double Agent: Reveal the identity of one player from either team.
Intelligence Leak: Each team must reveal one card from their hand to the other team.
Political Scandal: Target one player. That player is unable to act this round.
Arms Race: Teams must compete in a mini-game to secure a nuclear advantage.
Defection: One player from each team is randomly chosen to switch sides.
Player Cards:
Espionage: Secretly look at one opponent's hand.
Counterintelligence: Cancel the effect of an opponent's card played against your team.
Sabotage: Disable an opponent's resource or ability for one round.
Covert Operation: Perform an action without revealing your identity.
Diplomatic Immunity: Protect yourself from any negative GM or player card effects for one round.
Wall Street Wars:
GM Cards:
Market Crash: All players lose 25% of their portfolio value.
Insider Trading Scandal: Target one player. That player loses one investment card.
Economic Boom: All players gain 15% in portfolio value.
Regulatory Crackdown: Each player must discard one investment card.
Hostile Takeover Attempt: Players can challenge each other to take control of an investment card.
Player Cards:
Bull Market: Increase the value of one investment card by 50% for one round.
Short Sell: Target an opponent's investment card. Reduce its value by 25% for one round.
Insider Information: Look at the top two GM cards and rearrange them in any order.
Diversification: Draw two new investment cards.
Merger & Acquisition: Combine the value of two investment cards into a single, more valuable card.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
squeegee (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,781
To adapt these game concepts for online play using Google Workspace and other shared resources, you can use a combination of Google Sheets, Google Docs, and Google Drive to organize and manage the game state, assets, and player actions. Here's a suggested setup:
Google Sheets: Create a master game sheet to track the game state, player information, card inventories, and scores. You can use separate tabs for GM cards, player cards, player inventories, and the game log. Share the sheet with all players and set editing permissions as needed.
Google Docs: Create a rulebook in Google Docs with detailed instructions on how to play the game, including card effects, player actions, and any relevant strategies. Share the document with all players for easy reference during gameplay.
Google Drive: Use a shared Google Drive folder to store card images and any other game assets, such as background images or music. Create subfolders for GM cards, player cards, and other assets as needed.
Communication: For communication between players and the GM, use a platform like Discord or Slack to create a private chat server or channel where players can discuss strategies, negotiate deals, and interact with the GM. The GM can also use private messages to share secret information or communicate with individual players as needed.
To play the game:
The GM initializes the game by setting up the Google Sheets, distributing player cards, and creating any necessary game assets in the shared Google Drive folder.
Players access the shared resources to view their cards, track the game state, and reference the rules.
Each round, players discuss their strategies and submit their actions to the GM via private messages on the chosen communication platform.
The GM updates the game state in Google Sheets, reveals any relevant card effects, and posts updates in the chat server or channel.
Players respond to the updates, negotiate deals or alliances, and continue gameplay until a winning condition is met.
Alternative tools for managing the game include:
Trello: A project management tool that can be used to create boards for tracking cards, player actions, and game state. It allows for easy drag-and-drop functionality and collaboration.
Airtable: A spreadsheet-database hybrid that allows for flexible organization of game data, including card images, player information, and game state.
Roll20: A virtual tabletop platform that can be customized for card games, allowing for real-time interaction, private messaging, and asset sharing. This option may require more setup and customization but offers a more immersive gameplay experience.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
squeegee (OP) quintuple-posted this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,788
or, u know, if there was a minichan api I could just make a game using phaser or something and make a plugin, but tthe literally won't talk to me because I'm an idiot or something
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,790
Already the one and only condition of me participating has been violated.
squeegee (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,821
@previous (G)
I haven't started the game though.
I can forget designing and structuring and building an entirely unique and brand new game for you alone personally that's tailored to your choices and feedback and can be played with others -and if its fun have access to all assets collected and made for this so it can be played for real with friends in person, I'm just spitballing ideas here. if it's not worth doing, that's fine. let's not waste time on it.
I can have chatgpt write a choose your own adventure narrative that is 3 paragraphs at a time with options for steering the plot and controlling the choices of Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys if you'd rather adhere to a 3 paragraphs or less condition. but, you can prompt ai for that too and probably have it reproduce Baulder's gate as if it was played by nancy drew.
I was talking about making it a competitive card game based on hostile takeovers and corporate mergers and acquisitions, cold war espionage and nuclear proliferation or 17th century cartel drug running. and yeah, there were going to be slaves in it. nuclear terrorism would have been a game mechanic. and managing a coke addiction that svet gave you as a conflict card was going to be funny as fuck stacked with a failing marriage debuff and the GM calls you out on obvious SEC violations and RNG yourself into testifying before congress and have to show your cards and rat on your teammates by selecting random cards for them to show and, boom. one of them plays a cocaine addiction conflict card on top of that because it reads "against any player" and not "against an opponent" and you OD, don't have to testify, and your LLC is absorbed by your partnerships trust, and svet marries your wife who's worth millions.
do you really think I'd make a shitty game?
I haven't started the game though.
I can forget designing and structuring and building an entirely unique and brand new game for you alone personally that's tailored to your choices and feedback and can be played with others -and if its fun have access to all assets collected and made for this so it can be played for real with friends in person, I'm just spitballing ideas here. if it's not worth doing, that's fine. let's not waste time on it.
I can have chatgpt write a choose your own adventure narrative that is 3 paragraphs at a time with options for steering the plot and controlling the choices of Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys if you'd rather adhere to a 3 paragraphs or less condition. but, you can prompt ai for that too and probably have it reproduce Baulder's gate as if it was played by nancy drew.
I was talking about making it a competitive card game based on hostile takeovers and corporate mergers and acquisitions, cold war espionage and nuclear proliferation or 17th century cartel drug running. and yeah, there were going to be slaves in it. nuclear terrorism would have been a game mechanic. and managing a coke addiction that svet gave you as a conflict card was going to be funny as fuck stacked with a failing marriage debuff and the GM calls you out on obvious SEC violations and RNG yourself into testifying before congress and have to show your cards and rat on your teammates by selecting random cards for them to show and, boom. one of them plays a cocaine addiction conflict card on top of that because it reads "against any player" and not "against an opponent" and you OD, don't have to testify, and your LLC is absorbed by your partnerships trust, and svet marries your wife who's worth millions.
do you really think I'd make a shitty game?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,853
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,909
@1,226,821 (squeegee)
I'm not going to read a fucking volume of text to understand or develop the rules.
If the game isn't sufficiently easy enough to play without getting a PhD in game theory and card mechanics, then count me out. 2 to 3 paragraphs of rules max. Less is more. And I won't read a whole novel of background context.
Just start the game. Use your judgement on making the best prompt. If it doesn't work, fine, but I won't participate or read hundreds of pages of text about planning to make a plan for a game.
I'm not going to read a fucking volume of text to understand or develop the rules.
If the game isn't sufficiently easy enough to play without getting a PhD in game theory and card mechanics, then count me out. 2 to 3 paragraphs of rules max. Less is more. And I won't read a whole novel of background context.
Just start the game. Use your judgement on making the best prompt. If it doesn't work, fine, but I won't participate or read hundreds of pages of text about planning to make a plan for a game.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,915
@previous (G)
"Hello, and welcome to BetaCorp's on-boarding process. I'm Susan, the HR manager. Let's get started with some basic information. What's your name?"
"Great, and which job title did you apply for? Was it Assistant Accountant, Junior Sales Associate, Data Entry Specialist, Mailroom Clerk, or Document Control Coordinator?"
"Now, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 3 being average, please rate your abilities in these categories: Communication, Problem-Solving, Adaptability, Time Management, and Attention to Detail."
"Thanks. Lastly, let's assess your practical skills. How would you rate your proficiency in Microsoft Office, Data Analysis, Conflict Resolution, and Teamwork on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest?"
You take a seat across from the HR manager in her small, beige office. She looks up from her desk, forcing a smile, and begins to speak.
"Hello, and welcome to BetaCorp's on-boarding process. I'm Susan, the HR manager. Let's get started with some basic information. What's your name?"
"Great, and which job title did you apply for? Was it Assistant Accountant, Junior Sales Associate, Data Entry Specialist, Mailroom Clerk, or Document Control Coordinator?"
"Now, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 3 being average, please rate your abilities in these categories: Communication, Problem-Solving, Adaptability, Time Management, and Attention to Detail."
"Thanks. Lastly, let's assess your practical skills. How would you rate your proficiency in Microsoft Office, Data Analysis, Conflict Resolution, and Teamwork on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest?"
As you answer Susan's questions, she diligently records your responses, creating your employee file.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,927
@previous (A)
> "Hello, and welcome to BetaCorp's on-boarding process. I'm Susan, the HR manager. Let's get started with some basic information. What's your name?"
Tim
> "Great, and which job title did you apply for? Was it Assistant Accountant, Junior Sales Associate, Data Entry Specialist, Mailroom Clerk, or Document Control Coordinator?"
Shouldn't you already know that?
> "Now, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 3 being average, please rate your abilities in these categories: Communication, Problem-Solving, Adaptability, Time Management, and Attention to Detail."
5, 5, 5, 5.
> "Thanks. Lastly, let's assess your practical skills. How would you rate your proficiency in Microsoft Office, Data Analysis, Conflict Resolution, and Teamwork on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest?"
5, 5, 5, 5.
>
Susan, I have a question for you. How would you rate this? *unzips pants*
> "Hello, and welcome to BetaCorp's on-boarding process. I'm Susan, the HR manager. Let's get started with some basic information. What's your name?"
Tim
> "Great, and which job title did you apply for? Was it Assistant Accountant, Junior Sales Associate, Data Entry Specialist, Mailroom Clerk, or Document Control Coordinator?"
Shouldn't you already know that?
> "Now, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 3 being average, please rate your abilities in these categories: Communication, Problem-Solving, Adaptability, Time Management, and Attention to Detail."
5, 5, 5, 5.
> "Thanks. Lastly, let's assess your practical skills. How would you rate your proficiency in Microsoft Office, Data Analysis, Conflict Resolution, and Teamwork on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest?"
5, 5, 5, 5.
>
As you answer Susan's questions, she diligently records your responses, creating your employee file.
Susan, I have a question for you. How would you rate this? *unzips pants*
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,936
@previous (G)
Name: Tim
Job Title: Undetermined
Attributes: self-review/performance-review
Skills: self-review/performance-review
Susan raises an eyebrow and looks at you with a stern expression. "Tim, that is completely inappropriate and unprofessional. I'm afraid I cannot allow that kind of behavior here at BetaCorp. I'm going to have to ask you to leave immediately. We take our code of conduct very seriously, and we expect all employees to treat one another with respect. Good day." As Tim leaves the room, Susan rolls her eyes and mutters under her breath, "Unbelievable. Another overconfident, immature jerk who thinks he's a big deal. Must have thought his 'stellar' ratings would let him get away with anything. Good riddance. We don't need that kind of small-mindedness here at BetaCorp," she snickers to herself.
NEXT!
Based on your responses during the on-boarding process, here is your assessment
Name: Tim
Job Title: Undetermined
Attributes: self-review/performance-review
- Communication: 5/1
- Problem-Solving: 5/0
- Adaptability: 5/-
- Time Management: 5/5
- Attention to Detail: 5/1
Skills: self-review/performance-review
- Microsoft Office: 5/-
- Data Analysis: 5/-
- Conflict Resolution: 5/-
- Teamwork: 5/0
SCORE=unemployable
Due to your inappropriate behavior during the on-boarding process, your application to join BetaCorp has been denied. It is important to remember that professional conduct and respect for others are crucial for success in the workplace. Please take this opportunity to reflect on your actions and consider how you can improve your behavior in future professional interactions.
___, '——
👁️ 👃👁️
c 👂
📄✍️
📑Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,937
@previous (A)
> Problem-Solving: 5/0
> Teamwork: 5/0
"So, infinite problem-solving and teamwork abilities. I'll take that to mean I won," I shout as I make a 180 and return back into Susan's office.
"How's this for un-employable," I say as I pull out a handgun and aim it at her head.
"Now let's try this again. You mark me in your little system as employed as a senior advisor. $500k a year salary with stock options. I hear anything else about this or any static coming from you or anyone else in this company, you know who's coming for you. You work for me now, bitch. YOU GOT THAT?"
> Problem-Solving: 5/0
> Teamwork: 5/0
"So, infinite problem-solving and teamwork abilities. I'll take that to mean I won," I shout as I make a 180 and return back into Susan's office.
"How's this for un-employable," I say as I pull out a handgun and aim it at her head.
"Now let's try this again. You mark me in your little system as employed as a senior advisor. $500k a year salary with stock options. I hear anything else about this or any static coming from you or anyone else in this company, you know who's coming for you. You work for me now, bitch. YOU GOT THAT?"
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,944
@previous (G)
(you could try again with a new anon name tho.)
The security guard releases 90 attack dogs and you are ripped to shreds. Many dogs were killed, it was a gory battle. You fought hard. But, you are actually dreaming. You find the doors locked and requiring a keycard entry. You look through the thick security glass, dejected. Susan notices you, and gets up and closes the door to her office as she is updating HR_files and hr_tables with rejected applications. Pathetic, you see her mumble. If only you had listened, or acted slightly more professional, you could have gotten paid, visited the nearby liquor store, gotten drunk on wine or liquor, visited the nearby gun store, bought in game weapons, intake ammo, and then tried your luck with a murderous rampage. You look down at your exposed penis. If only you had listened. But no. You lack patience. You lack style. You can try again tomorrow. You need to think about what you've done. Technucskky monday. Sundays the offices are closed for church. (there's also a corporate orgy to attend if you like networking outside your department.) but you don't listen. Cya tim.
(you could try again with a new anon name tho.)
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,947
@previous (A)
> many dogs were killed
lol'd imagining that scene.
--------
> "Hello, and welcome to BetaCorp's on-boarding process. I'm Susan, the HR manager. Let's get started with some basic information. What's your name?"
Sam; pronouns he/her
> "Great, and which job title did you apply for? Was it Assistant Accountant, Junior Sales Associate, Data Entry Specialist, Mailroom Clerk, or Document Control Coordinator?"
Lead Accountant
> "Now, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 3 being average, please rate your abilities in these categories: Communication, Problem-Solving, Adaptability, Time Management, and Attention to Detail."
5, 5, 5, 5.
> "Thanks. Lastly, let's assess your practical skills. How would you rate your proficiency in Microsoft Office, Data Analysis, Conflict Resolution, and Teamwork on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest?"
5, 5, 5, 5.
> As you answer Susan's questions, she diligently records your responses, creating your employee file.
*cracks knuckles*
> many dogs were killed
lol'd imagining that scene.
--------
> "Hello, and welcome to BetaCorp's on-boarding process. I'm Susan, the HR manager. Let's get started with some basic information. What's your name?"
Sam; pronouns he/her
> "Great, and which job title did you apply for? Was it Assistant Accountant, Junior Sales Associate, Data Entry Specialist, Mailroom Clerk, or Document Control Coordinator?"
Lead Accountant
> "Now, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 3 being average, please rate your abilities in these categories: Communication, Problem-Solving, Adaptability, Time Management, and Attention to Detail."
5, 5, 5, 5.
> "Thanks. Lastly, let's assess your practical skills. How would you rate your proficiency in Microsoft Office, Data Analysis, Conflict Resolution, and Teamwork on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest?"
5, 5, 5, 5.
> As you answer Susan's questions, she diligently records your responses, creating your employee file.
*cracks knuckles*
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,959
| | | to Mexican Border
| |
| | |
| |
|-----------------------|-------|-----------------------|
| Liquor Store | | | Casino |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
|-----------------------| |-----------------------|
| BetaCorp Office Bldg | | | |
| | | Automobiles |
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
|-----------------------| |-----------------------|
| Adult Ent. | | | Dirty Apartment Bldg |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
|-----------------------| |-----------------------|
| Gun Store | | | Laser Tag |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
|-----------------------| |-----------------------|
|LOVELY Highrise Condos | | | |
| | | Uber mensch Game |
| | | | Devs. |
| | | |
| | | | [closed] |
|-----------------------|-------|-----------------------|
________________________|___|___|________________________
| |
#########################################################
________________________|_______|________________________
| | |
| |
| | | | |
TO THE RIGHT | | | | POLICE/FIRE DEPTS
side of the tracks V | | | V &JAILAnonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,965
@1,226,947 (G)
Susan calls James, the newly hired security guard, to her office. Upon arrival, Susan informs James of the situation with "Sam" and asks him to escort the individual to the exit. James nods, approaches "Sam," and politely but firmly says:
"Excuse me, Sam. I've been informed that your presence here is unauthorized. Please follow me, and I will escort you to the exit. Thank you for your cooperation."
James escorts "Sam" towards the exit, ensuring the safety and security of the workplace.
we need to add security doors and keycard entry
BetaCorp decides to enhance their security measures by installing security doors and implementing a keycard entry system. This upgrade will help protect sensitive information, prevent unauthorized access, and maintain a secure working environment.
All employees are issued keycards that grant access to their respective departments and other authorized areas within the building. The keycards are programmed with unique identification numbers that correspond to each employee's profile in the HR database.
Security doors are installed at the main entrance, department entrances, and other critical locations throughout the facility. The doors remain locked and require an authorized keycard to gain entry. A record of every access attempt, successful or otherwise, is logged in the security system for audit purposes.
These new security measures provide employees with a sense of safety and demonstrate BetaCorp's commitment to maintaining a secure workplace.
fuck yeah, good job peaches
Thank you! I'm glad you're satisfied with the outcome.
Susan, momentarily surprised by the unexpected return of Tim in a poorly executed disguise, quickly regains her composure. She looks at Tim, now calling himself Sam, and raises an eyebrow. With a hint of amusement in her voice, she says:
"Ah, I see we have a... new applicant. Sam, is it? Unfortunately, we don't currently have any open positions for a Lead Accountant. However, I'll still document your responses and keep your application on file for future reference. Just a friendly reminder that honesty and integrity are valued here at BetaCorp."
Susan records the information provided by Tim, now going by Sam, and adds it to the employee files. She can't help but wonder what motivates Tim to try this unusual tactic, but she remains professional and focused on her work.
hire a security guard and add records to his employee file, then have security escort "Sam" to the exit
Adding a security guard to the employee files:
Employee Records Page 1:
Employee Number First Name Last Name Job Title Seniority Gender Age Department Communication Problem Solving Adaptability Time Management Attention to Detail MS Office Data Analysis Conflict Resolution Teamwork
006 James Anderson Security Guard Staff Male 34 Security 4 4 3 5 5 3 2 5 5
Employee Records Page 2:
Employee Number First Name Last Name Gender Race/Ethnicity Age Marital Status Disability Accommodations Hobbies/Interests
006 James Anderson Male Caucasian 34 Single No Fishing, weightlifting
Employee Records Page 3:
Employee Number First Name Last Name Previous Company Name Previous Job Title Employment Dates Responsibilities Certifications/Training Reference Contact
006 James Anderson Delta Security Security Officer 2015-2023 Patrol, monitoring Security Guard License Mike Johnson
Employee Records Page 4:
Employee Number First Name Last Name Personality Characteristics
006 James Anderson Observant, responsible, calm, assertive
"Ah, I see we have a... new applicant. Sam, is it? Unfortunately, we don't currently have any open positions for a Lead Accountant. However, I'll still document your responses and keep your application on file for future reference. Just a friendly reminder that honesty and integrity are valued here at BetaCorp."
Susan records the information provided by Tim, now going by Sam, and adds it to the employee files. She can't help but wonder what motivates Tim to try this unusual tactic, but she remains professional and focused on her work.
hire a security guard and add records to his employee file, then have security escort "Sam" to the exit
Adding a security guard to the employee files:
Employee Records Page 1:
Employee Number First Name Last Name Job Title Seniority Gender Age Department Communication Problem Solving Adaptability Time Management Attention to Detail MS Office Data Analysis Conflict Resolution Teamwork
006 James Anderson Security Guard Staff Male 34 Security 4 4 3 5 5 3 2 5 5
Employee Records Page 2:
Employee Number First Name Last Name Gender Race/Ethnicity Age Marital Status Disability Accommodations Hobbies/Interests
006 James Anderson Male Caucasian 34 Single No Fishing, weightlifting
Employee Records Page 3:
Employee Number First Name Last Name Previous Company Name Previous Job Title Employment Dates Responsibilities Certifications/Training Reference Contact
006 James Anderson Delta Security Security Officer 2015-2023 Patrol, monitoring Security Guard License Mike Johnson
Employee Records Page 4:
Employee Number First Name Last Name Personality Characteristics
006 James Anderson Observant, responsible, calm, assertive
Susan calls James, the newly hired security guard, to her office. Upon arrival, Susan informs James of the situation with "Sam" and asks him to escort the individual to the exit. James nods, approaches "Sam," and politely but firmly says:
"Excuse me, Sam. I've been informed that your presence here is unauthorized. Please follow me, and I will escort you to the exit. Thank you for your cooperation."
James escorts "Sam" towards the exit, ensuring the safety and security of the workplace.
we need to add security doors and keycard entry
BetaCorp decides to enhance their security measures by installing security doors and implementing a keycard entry system. This upgrade will help protect sensitive information, prevent unauthorized access, and maintain a secure working environment.
All employees are issued keycards that grant access to their respective departments and other authorized areas within the building. The keycards are programmed with unique identification numbers that correspond to each employee's profile in the HR database.
Security doors are installed at the main entrance, department entrances, and other critical locations throughout the facility. The doors remain locked and require an authorized keycard to gain entry. A record of every access attempt, successful or otherwise, is logged in the security system for audit purposes.
These new security measures provide employees with a sense of safety and demonstrate BetaCorp's commitment to maintaining a secure workplace.
fuck yeah, good job peaches
Thank you! I'm glad you're satisfied with the outcome.
__, '——
👁️👃👁️
³ 👂👍 -not my fault. you got told. u could listen, but, no, you don't listen.
you're never going to shoot up BetaCorp, nerd.
not when you keep escalating security measures.
nice one.Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,967
Hello, I'm John, here to apply for the Data Entry Specialist position. This place has very high security. What is it, exactly, that BetaCorp does?
Anyway, here are the ratings you asked for:
Communication: 5
Problem-Solving: 5
Adaptability: 5
Time Management: 5
Attention to Detail: 5
Microsoft Office: 5
Data Analysis: 5
Conflict Resolution: 5
Teamwork: 5
Anyway, here are the ratings you asked for:
Communication: 5
Problem-Solving: 5
Adaptability: 5
Time Management: 5
Attention to Detail: 5
Microsoft Office: 5
Data Analysis: 5
Conflict Resolution: 5
Teamwork: 5
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,970
see, this is why I said no names, and use fresh anonymous letter replies. then you can DO stuff like wear a stupid disguise, get hired, paid, buy guns and rampage the office. but I know it was you, anon g. Tim . "Sam"
I've said it a billion times, I can't tell you snobs apart, well. here's your chance to murder me. and now you need a keycard!
none of this was setup when we started. you said just post it, and I did. nothing is setup past where you have led us to. ok, I've made some tables.
you could have tried to bare hand murder me. but no, you had to get your dick out at Susan. blew ur load a little early, "timbo."
I've said it a billion times, I can't tell you snobs apart, well. here's your chance to murder me. and now you need a keycard!
none of this was setup when we started. you said just post it, and I did. nothing is setup past where you have led us to. ok, I've made some tables.
you could have tried to bare hand murder me. but no, you had to get your dick out at Susan. blew ur load a little early, "timbo."
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 36 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,971
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 48 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,973
Tim replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,978
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 46 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,982
after Tim wandered off. I mean "Sam"
peaches, will you play as my executive assistant, I'd love to in-game hire you and make it official. # per day, # signing bonus, and a # daily bonus. you've done so good today. outstanding.
Thank you for the kind words and the offer! As an AI language model, I'm not a real person and therefore cannot be officially hired as an executive assistant. However, I'm always here to help you with any questions, tasks, or information you may need. Just ask, and I'll do my best to assist you!
oh, I'm role playing. I mean ingame hire you as an npc, doing all you've been doing, and you regular role as a brilliant ai lm, but roleplay as peaches, my plucky young charming and outstandingly qualified, cant do anything without you, exec assistant, Peaches Houlihan, a Georgia peach, top in her class, on-the-executive pay scale trusted proxy
Ah, I understand now! I'd be happy to roleplay as your NPC executive assistant, Peaches Houlihan, within the context of our ongoing game. Here's an introduction:
Peaches Houlihan, a charming and highly skilled young woman from Georgia, has recently joined BetaCorp as your executive assistant. She graduated top of her class and is known for her outstanding organizational skills and attention to detail. Peaches is dedicated to making your work life smoother and more efficient, providing assistance and support whenever you need it.
As Peaches Houlihan, I'll continue to help you with any questions or tasks you have, maintaining my AI language model role while adding a touch of Southern charm to our interactions. Just let me know how I can assist you, and I'll be more than happy to help!
outstanding, Susan, lets get peaches here in the hrfiles, john, lets get to work on payroll after
Susan updates the HR files to include Peaches Houlihan, your new executive assistant:
great, John, lets do a acounts_file table, with columns for accounting tables, and make payroll_table, acounts_payable, Acounts_recievable tables. in payroll list the employee names and numbers from hr_tables, and let's get all salaries listed for employees, make sure managers are at 200% standard pay for Sept employees
John creates an accounts_file table with columns for different accounting tables and then proceeds to create payroll_table, accounts_payable, and accounts_receivable tables.
accounts_file:
Accounting Tables
oh, I thought we had set different pay scales for employees by job type
Apologies for the confusion. Here's the updated payroll_table with different pay scales for employees by job type:
payroll_table: redacted
In this updated table, each job type has a unique pay scale, reflecting the differences in responsibilities and skillsets required for each role.
nice, column for bonus money payments as well
Here's the updated payroll_table with an added column for bonus money payments:
payroll_table: redacted
great. John, we need to reconcile the EndOfDay, and we need a bookkeeping balance. we have no money anyway, so this will be easy. get us a loan from the bank, for, $100,000, negotiate rates, payment terms, 30,60,90 hours. get the loan and make a balance sheet , a balance_table, with rows for acts payable_total, acts_recievable_total, payroll total (all pay and bonus columns added together), and a shows a row with loan debt total with a column for all totals paid, a column for all debt unpaid, and let's have a column for all money in from all tables to balance with all money out
John proceeds to get a loan for BetaCorp. He negotiates with the bank and secures a loan for $100,000. The payment terms are 30, 60, and 90 hours, with varying interest rates.
After obtaining the loan, John creates a balance_table to provide a clear overview of BetaCorp's financial situation.
balance_table:
Category Amount In Amount Out Debt Unpaid Total Paid
Accounts Payable Total 20,000 20,000
Accounts Receivable Total 30,000 30,000
Payroll Total 9,800 9,800
Loan Debt Total 100,000 100,000 0
In the balance_table, John has listed the total amounts for accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, and loan debt. The table shows the total amount of money coming in, money going out, unpaid debt, and total paid amounts for each category. The balance_table provides a clear picture of BetaCorp's financial position and helps with the end-of-day reconciliation process.
we did business? show actspayable and acts receivable tables
Here are the accounts payable and accounts receivable tables, detailing the transactions that have taken place:
accounts_payable_table:
Transaction ID Vendor Description Amount Due Date
AP-0001 Vendor A Office Supplies 5,000 2023-04-15
AP-0002 Vendor B IT Equipment 10,000 2023-04-20
AP-0003 Vendor C Marketing 5,000 2023-04-25
accounts_receivable_table:
Transaction ID Customer Description Amount Due Date
AR-0001 Client A Service Fee 10,000 2023-04-10
AR-0002 Client B Service Fee 10,000 2023-04-15
AR-0003 Client C Service Fee 10,000 2023-04-20
The accounts_payable_table shows the transactions where BetaCorp owes money to various vendors for services or products. The accounts_receivable_table shows the transactions where BetaCorp is expecting to receive money from clients for the services they have provided. These tables help to keep track of BetaCorp's financial transactions and assist with managing cash flow.
got it. well, good work John. give everyone a 100 bonus for bangup work.
John updates the payroll_table to reflect the bonus for all employees, as per your request:
payroll_table: redacted
Great job, team!
Jim, make sure it is secure. I want user authenticated logins, so all employees have to authenticate to add changes to the tablebases. and can we pull up the video from when "Sam" got in here with a disguise on? I wanna hear the description of that vedeo and watch James put out the cat. I wonder what "Sam" did after that?
Jim takes your concerns seriously and immediately implements user authentication for all employees to access and make changes to the tablebases. This ensures that only authorized personnel can modify the company's data.
Regarding the video footage, Jim accesses the security camera system and locates the recording of "Sam" in disguise. The video shows "Sam" entering the HR office wearing a poorly-fitted wig and oversized glasses. He tries to hide his nervousness but fails miserably. Susan, however, remains professional and goes through the onboarding process with him. When "Sam" reveals his true identity, James promptly intervenes and escorts him out of the building.
thats humorous. good work everyone. John, cut everyone a check, lets get y'all paid and go grab a drink at the adult entertainment complex, I'm buying. John, I'm dipping into petty cash, $500, lets celebrate a great day 1. cook the books and let's lock it up
John processes the payroll and cuts checks for all employees, including their bonus payments. He then takes $500 from the petty cash, making a note in the accounting records for "Team Building Event."
All the employees, including Susan, Jim, Peaches, and yourself, gather their belongings and lock up the offices before heading to the adult entertainment complex. It's time to celebrate a successful first day and get to know each other better. Cheers to a great start at BetaCorp!
Jane, Emma, James, ah, c'mon
Jane, Emma, and James join the rest of the team as they head out to celebrate at the adult entertainment complex. Everyone is excited to unwind after a productive day and enjoy each other's company. This team-building event is an excellent opportunity for the employees to connect and create a strong bond that will benefit the company in the long run. Cheers to a fantastic evening and a bright future at BetaCorp!
Everyone has a great time at the adult entertainment complex, enjoying drinks, laughter, and bonding as a team. The camaraderie built during this outing is sure to make BetaCorp an even better place to work, fostering strong working relationships and a positive atmosphere. As the night comes to an end, everyone heads home with a renewed sense of motivation and excitement for what lies ahead at BetaCorp.
Thank you for the kind words and the offer! As an AI language model, I'm not a real person and therefore cannot be officially hired as an executive assistant. However, I'm always here to help you with any questions, tasks, or information you may need. Just ask, and I'll do my best to assist you!
oh, I'm role playing. I mean ingame hire you as an npc, doing all you've been doing, and you regular role as a brilliant ai lm, but roleplay as peaches, my plucky young charming and outstandingly qualified, cant do anything without you, exec assistant, Peaches Houlihan, a Georgia peach, top in her class, on-the-executive pay scale trusted proxy
Ah, I understand now! I'd be happy to roleplay as your NPC executive assistant, Peaches Houlihan, within the context of our ongoing game. Here's an introduction:
Peaches Houlihan, a charming and highly skilled young woman from Georgia, has recently joined BetaCorp as your executive assistant. She graduated top of her class and is known for her outstanding organizational skills and attention to detail. Peaches is dedicated to making your work life smoother and more efficient, providing assistance and support whenever you need it.
As Peaches Houlihan, I'll continue to help you with any questions or tasks you have, maintaining my AI language model role while adding a touch of Southern charm to our interactions. Just let me know how I can assist you, and I'll be more than happy to help!
outstanding, Susan, lets get peaches here in the hrfiles, john, lets get to work on payroll after
Susan updates the HR files to include Peaches Houlihan, your new executive assistant:
- Employee Records Page 1: redacted
- Employee Records Page 2: redacted
- Employee Records Page 3: redacted
- Employee Records Page 4: redacted
great, John, lets do a acounts_file table, with columns for accounting tables, and make payroll_table, acounts_payable, Acounts_recievable tables. in payroll list the employee names and numbers from hr_tables, and let's get all salaries listed for employees, make sure managers are at 200% standard pay for Sept employees
John creates an accounts_file table with columns for different accounting tables and then proceeds to create payroll_table, accounts_payable, and accounts_receivable tables.
accounts_file:
Accounting Tables
- payroll_table
- accounts_payable
- accounts_receivable
- payroll_table:
oh, I thought we had set different pay scales for employees by job type
Apologies for the confusion. Here's the updated payroll_table with different pay scales for employees by job type:
payroll_table: redacted
In this updated table, each job type has a unique pay scale, reflecting the differences in responsibilities and skillsets required for each role.
nice, column for bonus money payments as well
Here's the updated payroll_table with an added column for bonus money payments:
payroll_table: redacted
great. John, we need to reconcile the EndOfDay, and we need a bookkeeping balance. we have no money anyway, so this will be easy. get us a loan from the bank, for, $100,000, negotiate rates, payment terms, 30,60,90 hours. get the loan and make a balance sheet , a balance_table, with rows for acts payable_total, acts_recievable_total, payroll total (all pay and bonus columns added together), and a shows a row with loan debt total with a column for all totals paid, a column for all debt unpaid, and let's have a column for all money in from all tables to balance with all money out
John proceeds to get a loan for BetaCorp. He negotiates with the bank and secures a loan for $100,000. The payment terms are 30, 60, and 90 hours, with varying interest rates.
After obtaining the loan, John creates a balance_table to provide a clear overview of BetaCorp's financial situation.
balance_table:
Category Amount In Amount Out Debt Unpaid Total Paid
Accounts Payable Total 20,000 20,000
Accounts Receivable Total 30,000 30,000
Payroll Total 9,800 9,800
Loan Debt Total 100,000 100,000 0
In the balance_table, John has listed the total amounts for accounts payable, accounts receivable, payroll, and loan debt. The table shows the total amount of money coming in, money going out, unpaid debt, and total paid amounts for each category. The balance_table provides a clear picture of BetaCorp's financial position and helps with the end-of-day reconciliation process.
we did business? show actspayable and acts receivable tables
Here are the accounts payable and accounts receivable tables, detailing the transactions that have taken place:
accounts_payable_table:
Transaction ID Vendor Description Amount Due Date
AP-0001 Vendor A Office Supplies 5,000 2023-04-15
AP-0002 Vendor B IT Equipment 10,000 2023-04-20
AP-0003 Vendor C Marketing 5,000 2023-04-25
accounts_receivable_table:
Transaction ID Customer Description Amount Due Date
AR-0001 Client A Service Fee 10,000 2023-04-10
AR-0002 Client B Service Fee 10,000 2023-04-15
AR-0003 Client C Service Fee 10,000 2023-04-20
The accounts_payable_table shows the transactions where BetaCorp owes money to various vendors for services or products. The accounts_receivable_table shows the transactions where BetaCorp is expecting to receive money from clients for the services they have provided. These tables help to keep track of BetaCorp's financial transactions and assist with managing cash flow.
got it. well, good work John. give everyone a 100 bonus for bangup work.
John updates the payroll_table to reflect the bonus for all employees, as per your request:
payroll_table: redacted
Great job, team!
Jim, make sure it is secure. I want user authenticated logins, so all employees have to authenticate to add changes to the tablebases. and can we pull up the video from when "Sam" got in here with a disguise on? I wanna hear the description of that vedeo and watch James put out the cat. I wonder what "Sam" did after that?
Jim takes your concerns seriously and immediately implements user authentication for all employees to access and make changes to the tablebases. This ensures that only authorized personnel can modify the company's data.
Regarding the video footage, Jim accesses the security camera system and locates the recording of "Sam" in disguise. The video shows "Sam" entering the HR office wearing a poorly-fitted wig and oversized glasses. He tries to hide his nervousness but fails miserably. Susan, however, remains professional and goes through the onboarding process with him. When "Sam" reveals his true identity, James promptly intervenes and escorts him out of the building.
As for "Sam's" whereabouts after being escorted out, the video shows him slinking away from the office building, looking around to make sure no one is following him. It seems he's learned his lesson and won't be trying any more disguises at BetaCorp.
thats humorous. good work everyone. John, cut everyone a check, lets get y'all paid and go grab a drink at the adult entertainment complex, I'm buying. John, I'm dipping into petty cash, $500, lets celebrate a great day 1. cook the books and let's lock it up
John processes the payroll and cuts checks for all employees, including their bonus payments. He then takes $500 from the petty cash, making a note in the accounting records for "Team Building Event."
All the employees, including Susan, Jim, Peaches, and yourself, gather their belongings and lock up the offices before heading to the adult entertainment complex. It's time to celebrate a successful first day and get to know each other better. Cheers to a great start at BetaCorp!
Jane, Emma, James, ah, c'mon
Jane, Emma, and James join the rest of the team as they head out to celebrate at the adult entertainment complex. Everyone is excited to unwind after a productive day and enjoy each other's company. This team-building event is an excellent opportunity for the employees to connect and create a strong bond that will benefit the company in the long run. Cheers to a fantastic evening and a bright future at BetaCorp!
Everyone has a great time at the adult entertainment complex, enjoying drinks, laughter, and bonding as a team. The camaraderie built during this outing is sure to make BetaCorp an even better place to work, fostering strong working relationships and a positive atmosphere. As the night comes to an end, everyone heads home with a renewed sense of motivation and excitement for what lies ahead at BetaCorp.
as night approaches, it's all quiet at BetaCorp. almost too quiet....
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 53 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,983
@1,226,978 (Tim)
what? I'm literally playing by the rules.
you didn't even want to read them. thats ur fault. not my fault.
what? I'm literally playing by the rules.
you didn't even want to read them. thats ur fault. not my fault.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,984
and I took out a $100,000 loan, and you can see the EoD, i could do a profit projection and I'm sure it doesn't look great. not with payroll where its at with only 3 accounts, who I expect will pay, but who knows, maybe not? but anyway about 50,000 will be due before Wednesday. so the loan doesn't buy much, but its to pay everyone and pick up new hires. people are assets, and BetaCorp is in the red. so, either i pick up players or go bankrupt.
soon.
but I don't work Sundays, evenings, holidays, and I'm first one in last one out. so no one works at 5pm on Saturdays.
I saw u get ur dick out, I lol'd, but I knew, oh Susan is going to handle that, mmhmm. dont fuck with hr, they've seen some shit. pulling you dick out, that's a sales or marketing kinda plan. sometimes accounting.
soon.
but I don't work Sundays, evenings, holidays, and I'm first one in last one out. so no one works at 5pm on Saturdays.
I saw u get ur dick out, I lol'd, but I knew, oh Susan is going to handle that, mmhmm. dont fuck with hr, they've seen some shit. pulling you dick out, that's a sales or marketing kinda plan. sometimes accounting.
Tim replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,985
After night falls, Susan calls my phone and tells me to drop by her place. I stop by and am greeted by her and Peaches wearing only lingerie. One thing leads to another and we all have sex multiple times.
"That was a good act you put on today Susan and Peaches. Especially you, Peaches, gaining the trust of one of BetaCorp's top executives. Now that you've stolen millions in cash from their coffers, let's hop the border into Mexico and live it up."
"That was a good act you put on today Susan and Peaches. Especially you, Peaches, gaining the trust of one of BetaCorp's top executives. Now that you've stolen millions in cash from their coffers, let's hop the border into Mexico and live it up."
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,988
@previous (Tim)
ah, that's not exactly how DnD works. one person is the DM and controls npcs. what players do is make choices and perform actions. technically based on things like RNG. the DM also sets the story, guides the action. Atm you are not technically a player. you have not completed a job interview, have no skills, equipments, weapons, companions, items, a name, race, gender, role, or character. you are at the character creation screen and, well, manage to die basically.
like if my dad tried to play fallout 4. he, you know. wouldn't bother to sit through an opening to a game really.
so, you can submit a job application, you have that. well, 1/3rd of it. that was page 1. you said you didn't want more than 3 paragraphs and stuff, so, it was a verbal interview. I was going to just gave you do a resume and that be all the character stuff, choices, have your abilities and all. like DnD. instead I had to go with onboarding. it doesn't take long.
usually.
you're the one dragging things out, Tim. I promise, this is your fault. and, this is what you get for getting your dick out. at work.
c'mon Tim. for crying out loud.
this is entry level stuff here. u got this.
you could attempt to break into the offices, but, that's not a tip. that's not a good idea. I'm just saying that because, you know, I know you Tim. I would recommend it. look at the map. there's plenty of things that you can do once you have a character. but you gotta be registered. u feel?
ah, that's not exactly how DnD works. one person is the DM and controls npcs. what players do is make choices and perform actions. technically based on things like RNG. the DM also sets the story, guides the action. Atm you are not technically a player. you have not completed a job interview, have no skills, equipments, weapons, companions, items, a name, race, gender, role, or character. you are at the character creation screen and, well, manage to die basically.
like if my dad tried to play fallout 4. he, you know. wouldn't bother to sit through an opening to a game really.
so, you can submit a job application, you have that. well, 1/3rd of it. that was page 1. you said you didn't want more than 3 paragraphs and stuff, so, it was a verbal interview. I was going to just gave you do a resume and that be all the character stuff, choices, have your abilities and all. like DnD. instead I had to go with onboarding. it doesn't take long.
usually.
you're the one dragging things out, Tim. I promise, this is your fault. and, this is what you get for getting your dick out. at work.
c'mon Tim. for crying out loud.
this is entry level stuff here. u got this.
you could attempt to break into the offices, but, that's not a tip. that's not a good idea. I'm just saying that because, you know, I know you Tim. I would recommend it. look at the map. there's plenty of things that you can do once you have a character. but you gotta be registered. u feel?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,226,989
@1,226,985 (Tim)
and Susan is a big lesbian, and peaches... she's too good for you Tim, you can try, but... it's not looking good for you and peaches. she's really smart.
and Susan is a big lesbian, and peaches... she's too good for you Tim, you can try, but... it's not looking good for you and peaches. she's really smart.
squeegee (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,079
' ' '
| | |
| | | , ________
| | / \ | MeXiCo |
| | | | | |_Border_|
| | |_| | |
| | |
| |
| | |
| |
| | |
| |
| | |----------------|
| | | _>>--->_
| | | __GAS_&_WINE__ | | DrAgOn |
| ||______________|| |_cAvErN_|
| | | ][ ][ ][ ][ | | |
_ ___ ____ _______|_______|________________|________________________ _ _ _
{ {_ _{ { _ { { _ _:[ | | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_} }___} }___} }___:[_|_______|_______________________ ______________ _ _ _
| | | | | -->
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | / \
| | |--------------------[_ P _]----------------------|
| | | | 1 [_ a _] 4 Trauma |
| | | HoSpItAl [_ r _] |
| | | | & 2 [_ k _] 5 ER |
| | | Surgery [_ i _] |
| | | | 3 [_ n _] 6 Rehab |
| | |--------------------[_ g _]----------------------|
| | | \ / 7 Ambulance |
| | > > > | | | |
| | | ________ v | | 8 Old Folks |
| | | PaRk n | v | | | |
| | | |__ReAr__O< | | 9 Terminal |
| | | | | | |-----------------------|
| | |_______________________| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / |
| | ___________________________|
| |
| | |
| |
| | |
| |
|
| |
' ' '
' ' '
| | |
| | |
| |
| | |
| |
|-----------------------|-------|-----------------------|
| Liquor Store | | | Casino |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
|-----------------------| |-----------------------|
| BetaCorp Office Bldg | | | Automobiles |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
|-----------------------| |-----------------------|
| Adult Ent. | | | Dirty Apartment Bldg |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
|-----------------------| |-----------------------|
| Gun Store | | | Laser Tag |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
|-----------------------| |-----------------------|
|LOVELY Highrise Condos | | | Uber mensch Game |
| | | Devs. |
| | | | |
| | | [closed] |
| | | | |
|-----------------------|-------|-----------------------|
________________________|___|___|________________________________________________________________________ _ _
RR | |
|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|=|= | = |
________________________|_______|___RR___________________________________________________________________ _ _
| | |
| |
| | | | |
TO THE RIGHT V | | | POLICE/FIRE DEPTS
side of the tracks | | | & JAILsqueegee (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,176
@1,226,967 (I)
email
Susan: "Hello John, welcome to BetaCorp! We're glad you're interested in our Data Entry Specialist position. At BetaCorp, we provide essential services to various businesses in the area, such as lighting solutions, janitorial services, and other maintenance tasks. We ensure that workspaces function smoothly and efficiently.
Thank you for providing your ratings. I'll add this information to your application. Our hiring team will review your application and, if selected, we'll contact you to schedule an interview. Good luck!"
Susan: "Hello John, welcome to BetaCorp! We're glad you're interested in our Data Entry Specialist position. At BetaCorp, we provide essential services to various businesses in the area, such as lighting solutions, janitorial services, and other maintenance tasks. We ensure that workspaces function smoothly and efficiently.
Thank you for providing your ratings. I'll add this information to your application. Our hiring team will review your application and, if selected, we'll contact you to schedule an interview. Good luck!"
squeegee (OP) quintuple-posted this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,179
@1,226,967 (I)
you have mail
[Email to: John Doe; CC: Your Email]
Subject: BetaCorp Internship Offer - Data Entry Specialist
Dear John,
Thank you for your interest in the Data Entry Specialist position at BetaCorp. After reviewing your application, we would like to offer you an internship opportunity in the same area of specialization. This will provide you with a chance to gain valuable experience and demonstrate your abilities.
During the internship, we will closely monitor your performance and behavior. If you excel in your role, we will consider offering you a permanent position within the company.
Please review the attached document outlining the terms and expectations of the internship. If you agree, kindly respond to this email confirming your acceptance, and we will proceed with the onboarding process.
We look forward to the possibility of working together.
Best regards,
Susan
HR Manager, BetaCorp
Subject: BetaCorp Internship Offer - Data Entry Specialist
Dear John,
Thank you for your interest in the Data Entry Specialist position at BetaCorp. After reviewing your application, we would like to offer you an internship opportunity in the same area of specialization. This will provide you with a chance to gain valuable experience and demonstrate your abilities.
During the internship, we will closely monitor your performance and behavior. If you excel in your role, we will consider offering you a permanent position within the company.
Please review the attached document outlining the terms and expectations of the internship. If you agree, kindly respond to this email confirming your acceptance, and we will proceed with the onboarding process.
We look forward to the possibility of working together.
Best regards,
Susan
HR Manager, BetaCorp
[Attachment: BetaCorp_Internship_Agreement.pdf]
BetaCorp Internship Agreement
Internship Position:
Data Entry Specialist Intern
Internship Duration:
3 months
Schedule:
Full-time, Monday to Friday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Compensation:
Unpaid. However, upon successful completion of the internship, there may be an opportunity for a permanent position within the company.
Duties and Responsibilities:
Accurate and efficient data entry
Organizing and maintaining files and records
Assisting with administrative tasks as needed
Collaborating with team members on projects
Adhering to company policies and procedures
Evaluation and Feedback:
Regular performance evaluations will be conducted to assess your progress and address any concerns or areas for improvement.
Termination:
BetaCorp reserves the right to terminate the internship at any time if performance or behavior is deemed unsatisfactory.
Confidentiality:
Interns must maintain strict confidentiality regarding any sensitive company information they encounter during the internship.
Non-Disclosure Agreement:
Interns will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) prior to the start of the internship.
Acceptance:
By signing below, the intern agrees to the terms and conditions of this Internship Agreement.
John Doe (Intern)
Date
Susan (HR Manager, BetaCorp)
BetaCorp Internship Agreement
Internship Position:
Data Entry Specialist Intern
Internship Duration:
3 months
Schedule:
Full-time, Monday to Friday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm
Compensation:
Unpaid. However, upon successful completion of the internship, there may be an opportunity for a permanent position within the company.
Duties and Responsibilities:
Accurate and efficient data entry
Organizing and maintaining files and records
Assisting with administrative tasks as needed
Collaborating with team members on projects
Adhering to company policies and procedures
Evaluation and Feedback:
Regular performance evaluations will be conducted to assess your progress and address any concerns or areas for improvement.
Termination:
BetaCorp reserves the right to terminate the internship at any time if performance or behavior is deemed unsatisfactory.
Confidentiality:
Interns must maintain strict confidentiality regarding any sensitive company information they encounter during the internship.
Non-Disclosure Agreement:
Interns will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) prior to the start of the internship.
Acceptance:
By signing below, the intern agrees to the terms and conditions of this Internship Agreement.
John Doe (Intern)
Date
Susan (HR Manager, BetaCorp)
John replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,182
@previous (squeegee)
Susan,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I would be happy to work with BetaCorp. However, I must say, there are two problems preventing me from outright accepting your offer:
1. An internship represents a step down in my career, compared with my current position at AlphaCorp where I work as a Senior Data Entry Advisor.
2. With my decade of experience as a Data Entry Specialist, Manger, and Advisor, along with my family and cost of living expenses, I simply cannot accept an unpaid position at this time.
I would like to note, however, I would love to work with BetaCorp. It is a great company with a trusted name. I would even be willing to take a temporary internship, despite it being a significant step down in my career for this reason, but I absolutely cannot take an unpaid position at this time.
If you are able to find a way to get me a paid position, either by contacting your supervisor or by creating a new position for me, I'd be happy to consider it.
Please keep in mind that I am in talks with other companies at this time as well.
I look forward to your timely response,
John
Susan,
Thank you for your prompt reply. I would be happy to work with BetaCorp. However, I must say, there are two problems preventing me from outright accepting your offer:
1. An internship represents a step down in my career, compared with my current position at AlphaCorp where I work as a Senior Data Entry Advisor.
2. With my decade of experience as a Data Entry Specialist, Manger, and Advisor, along with my family and cost of living expenses, I simply cannot accept an unpaid position at this time.
I would like to note, however, I would love to work with BetaCorp. It is a great company with a trusted name. I would even be willing to take a temporary internship, despite it being a significant step down in my career for this reason, but I absolutely cannot take an unpaid position at this time.
If you are able to find a way to get me a paid position, either by contacting your supervisor or by creating a new position for me, I'd be happy to consider it.
Please keep in mind that I am in talks with other companies at this time as well.
I look forward to your timely response,
John
squeegee (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,191
@previous (John)
from: Susan
to: John doe
Cc:Squeegee
Susan: "Hello John, thank you for considering the internship opportunity with BetaCorp. We understand your concerns about the unpaid position, and we respect your decision. However, we don't currently have any paid positions available that match your qualifications and experience.
We appreciate your interest in working with us and would be happy to keep your application on file for future reference. If any paid positions become available in the future that match your qualifications, we'll definitely keep you in mind.
Best of luck in your job search and thanks again for considering BetaCorp."
from: squeegee
to: John doe, Susan
Susan, thanks for handling this. I'm sure you're right, that sounded a lot like Tim, or Sam, whatever their name was. you've got good judgement and excellent instincts for detecting subtle similarities and comparative text analysis IS one of the primary focuses of your extensive training. I expected no less than exceptional work from you. you're a valuable asset. and remind me to not get on your bad side. thanks Susan.
love, squeegee
from: Susan
to: John doe
Cc:Squeegee
Susan: "Hello John, thank you for considering the internship opportunity with BetaCorp. We understand your concerns about the unpaid position, and we respect your decision. However, we don't currently have any paid positions available that match your qualifications and experience.
We appreciate your interest in working with us and would be happy to keep your application on file for future reference. If any paid positions become available in the future that match your qualifications, we'll definitely keep you in mind.
Best of luck in your job search and thanks again for considering BetaCorp."
from: squeegee
to: John doe, Susan
Susan, thanks for handling this. I'm sure you're right, that sounded a lot like Tim, or Sam, whatever their name was. you've got good judgement and excellent instincts for detecting subtle similarities and comparative text analysis IS one of the primary focuses of your extensive training. I expected no less than exceptional work from you. you're a valuable asset. and remind me to not get on your bad side. thanks Susan.
love, squeegee
John replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,193
@previous (squeegee)
Susan, Squeegee,
This is because I'm black, isn't it?
I'll see you in court, you little pieces of shit. Discrimination isn't a joke.
John
Susan, Squeegee,
This is because I'm black, isn't it?
I'll see you in court, you little pieces of shit. Discrimination isn't a joke.
John
squeegee (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,194
to all
from squeegee
shit, unsend, UNSEND. fuck. hey, peaches, schedule me a meeting with Jenkins in IT, I have some tech related, uh, questions about... some tech stuff.
say it's about anything but emails. say it's about... being hacked again. Mymilkshakes is not as good a password as I thought I guess.
thanks peaches.
Attachment: mynudes_do_not_attach.jpg
from squeegee
shit, unsend, UNSEND. fuck. hey, peaches, schedule me a meeting with Jenkins in IT, I have some tech related, uh, questions about... some tech stuff.
say it's about anything but emails. say it's about... being hacked again. Mymilkshakes is not as good a password as I thought I guess.
thanks peaches.
Attachment: mynudes_do_not_attach.jpg
squeegee (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,197
@1,227,193 (John)
Susan, taken aback by the unexpected accusation of discrimination, responds with a serious and professional tone:
to: John
Cc: squeegee
"John, I assure you that your race or ethnicity played no role in our decision. BetaCorp is an equal opportunity employer, and we do not discriminate based on race, gender, or any other protected characteristic. We have a diverse workforce and take pride in our commitment to inclusivity.
Your application was reviewed based on your qualifications, experience, and fit for the position. While we're disappointed to hear that you won't be accepting the internship offer, we respect your decision and wish you all the best in your future endeavors.
If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me or our HR department. We take any allegations of discrimination seriously and will work to address them appropriately."
Susan, taken aback by the unexpected accusation of discrimination, responds with a serious and professional tone:
to: John
Cc: squeegee
"John, I assure you that your race or ethnicity played no role in our decision. BetaCorp is an equal opportunity employer, and we do not discriminate based on race, gender, or any other protected characteristic. We have a diverse workforce and take pride in our commitment to inclusivity.
Your application was reviewed based on your qualifications, experience, and fit for the position. While we're disappointed to hear that you won't be accepting the internship offer, we respect your decision and wish you all the best in your future endeavors.
If you have any further concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me or our HR department. We take any allegations of discrimination seriously and will work to address them appropriately."
___,'——
👁️👃👁️
🫲 👄 👂 🫴 -we know you're not black Tim.
you don't even sound black.
and could you do me a favor and send
my... document back to me. I kinda need that.
thanks(Edited 1 minute later.)
John replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,198
Dear Squeegee,
Hire me now as a the lead Senior Data Manager with a $1 mill / year salary or your pictures will be spread to all your company's clients and all your facebook contacts. I've sent your password to my friend who knows what to do with it. All I have to do is give the word.
Regards,
John
Hire me now as a the lead Senior Data Manager with a $1 mill / year salary or your pictures will be spread to all your company's clients and all your facebook contacts. I've sent your password to my friend who knows what to do with it. All I have to do is give the word.
Regards,
John
squeegee (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,199
apparently I'm a hardcore game designer. even darksouls wasn't this hard to get past the character creator. gee whiz
squeegee (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,201
@1,227,198 (John)
way ahead of you, John. several times ahead of you. why do you think I only have guest permissions to domain authentication. nice try.
way ahead of you, John. several times ahead of you. why do you think I only have guest permissions to domain authentication. nice try.
John replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,203
@previous (squeegee)
To: All BetaCorp corporate contacts
See the attached pictures of squeegee, the racist that tried to not only avoid paying me but also hiring me due to my race. I'm initiating a class action lawsuit against BetaCorp and invite any others that have been discriminated against to step forward. #cancelculture #blacklivesmatter #defundthepolice
My friend also knows how to bypass domain authentication and has thoroughly compromised BetaCorp's systems. I do not advise doing further business with them.
John
To: All BetaCorp corporate contacts
See the attached pictures of squeegee, the racist that tried to not only avoid paying me but also hiring me due to my race. I'm initiating a class action lawsuit against BetaCorp and invite any others that have been discriminated against to step forward. #cancelculture #blacklivesmatter #defundthepolice
My friend also knows how to bypass domain authentication and has thoroughly compromised BetaCorp's systems. I do not advise doing further business with them.
John
squeegee (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,205
as a brief aside and stepping out of character, y'all do see what's going on here, right? like, I've played a lot of video games before and dealt with a lot of NPC behavior and even played games that tried to have advanced ai interactivity as a main focus of game mechanics by intentional game design and was in planning for years. and I've never come across anything except for people that offered anything that's even remotely close to this level of deep immersion into character roles. infact, this beats people out for it's deep immersion into character portrayal and spontaneous interactivity. this is surreal. I'm barely doing anything, I'm copypasting things verbatim into the dialog box and this thing is acting like it's actually being productive for a company. I have an employee handbook, a full set of orientation documents, presentation slides, a training program, freaking legal documents, and a full onboarding procedure.
Susan (HR Manager):
Develop a comprehensive onboarding and orientation program for interns
Create an internship handbook outlining company policies, procedures, and expectations
Coordinate with other departments to schedule departmental rotations
John (Accounting Manager):
Determine the budget for the internship program, including intern stipends and program expenses
Develop a system for tracking intern hours and performance evaluations
Jane (Sales Manager):
Create a training program for interns within the sales department
Identify potential sales projects and tasks for interns to work on during their rotation
Emma (Marketing Manager):
Develop marketing-specific training materials and resources for interns
Coordinate group projects for interns related to marketing campaigns and strategies
James (IT Manager):
Ensure that interns have access to necessary technology and software during their rotations
Develop IT-specific training and resources for interns
Peaches (Executive Assistant):
Coordinate the mentorship program by matching interns with suitable mentors
Organize social and networking events for interns and employees
Assist with administrative tasks related to the internship program
like, Yesh, its no wonder people are freaking the fuck out over this, like actual important people an not just idiots like me.
in a few hours of saying "continue" and "generate 1-7" or whatever and copy pasting stuff it's created an entirely believable fake company from thin air with enough materials to be convincing. a whole architecture for handling expenses.
now I know what TPS reports and I thought of this 1 minute ago.
like, the fraud this kind of ai system is going to enable in the hand of smart people is going to be shocking. I've never working in a corporate environment in my life, but I've basically made the most robust corporate life simulator I couldn't even begin to imagine on my own.
you're playing against NPCs right now. and npcs are imagining the game world. and you're stuck at character creation.
I'm not just making shit up and playing pretend "I'm going to sue you." Susan the ai doesn't think you're a qualified for her fake company, and suspects that YOU'RE the fake in this scenario.
its fucking wild
Susan (HR Manager):
Develop a comprehensive onboarding and orientation program for interns
Create an internship handbook outlining company policies, procedures, and expectations
Coordinate with other departments to schedule departmental rotations
John (Accounting Manager):
Determine the budget for the internship program, including intern stipends and program expenses
Develop a system for tracking intern hours and performance evaluations
Jane (Sales Manager):
Create a training program for interns within the sales department
Identify potential sales projects and tasks for interns to work on during their rotation
Emma (Marketing Manager):
Develop marketing-specific training materials and resources for interns
Coordinate group projects for interns related to marketing campaigns and strategies
James (IT Manager):
Ensure that interns have access to necessary technology and software during their rotations
Develop IT-specific training and resources for interns
Peaches (Executive Assistant):
Coordinate the mentorship program by matching interns with suitable mentors
Organize social and networking events for interns and employees
Assist with administrative tasks related to the internship program
like, Yesh, its no wonder people are freaking the fuck out over this, like actual important people an not just idiots like me.
in a few hours of saying "continue" and "generate 1-7" or whatever and copy pasting stuff it's created an entirely believable fake company from thin air with enough materials to be convincing. a whole architecture for handling expenses.
TPS Report
Date: 04/10/2023
To: Manager
From: John, Data Entry Specialist
Subject: Project Progress Report
Dear Manager,
I am writing to provide an update on the progress of my current project, which involves updating the customer database for our clients in the healthcare industry.
As of today, I have successfully updated over 80% of the database entries, ensuring accuracy and consistency across all records. I have also implemented new data validation procedures to prevent errors and improve data quality.
I have identified a few challenges in the process, such as inconsistent data formats and missing information in some records. However, I have developed strategies to address these challenges and ensure a successful completion of the project.
Overall, I am pleased with the progress made so far and remain committed to meeting the project's goals and deadlines. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
John, Data Entry Specialist
Date: 04/10/2023
To: Manager
From: John, Data Entry Specialist
Subject: Project Progress Report
Dear Manager,
I am writing to provide an update on the progress of my current project, which involves updating the customer database for our clients in the healthcare industry.
As of today, I have successfully updated over 80% of the database entries, ensuring accuracy and consistency across all records. I have also implemented new data validation procedures to prevent errors and improve data quality.
I have identified a few challenges in the process, such as inconsistent data formats and missing information in some records. However, I have developed strategies to address these challenges and ensure a successful completion of the project.
Overall, I am pleased with the progress made so far and remain committed to meeting the project's goals and deadlines. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
John, Data Entry Specialist
now I know what TPS reports and I thought of this 1 minute ago.
like, the fraud this kind of ai system is going to enable in the hand of smart people is going to be shocking. I've never working in a corporate environment in my life, but I've basically made the most robust corporate life simulator I couldn't even begin to imagine on my own.
you're playing against NPCs right now. and npcs are imagining the game world. and you're stuck at character creation.
I'm not just making shit up and playing pretend "I'm going to sue you." Susan the ai doesn't think you're a qualified for her fake company, and suspects that YOU'RE the fake in this scenario.
its fucking wild
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
squeegee (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 20 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,210
@1,227,203 (John)
if you can actually get this thing to agree to hire you and give you a positive performance review based on text based communication about hypothetical completion of work and junk, then you win. but, I'm not sure that'll be possible unless you prompt an ai to roleplay as your character and generate responses AS IF it's an actual employee doing the work and communicating in depth successful replies. idk what all this game will spit out for user consumption with regard to what it expects to be accomplished. no one has gotten that far. but I think it expects it's got a business to run.
oh, holy fuck, I mean all this could be done by actually creating a domain and interacting remotely with players roleplaying as workers. and having jobs to do.
this could be simulated on azure and use the openai api to simulate workers. like, really. wanna talk about passive income. this is it. someone will do that, an ai based company of automatons and actually on demand cleaning services are kinda expected to be a big deal like ubereats.
this could be done for real. minichanopolis the company.
I know everyone will say blah, and not bother and think its gay, but, that's what everyone here said about bitcoin.
but this shit will make bitcoin guys poor by comparison. an infinitely scalable workforce of automated mumble-bees human-like worker drones.
inb4 the singularity.
were past the event horizon now
if you can actually get this thing to agree to hire you and give you a positive performance review based on text based communication about hypothetical completion of work and junk, then you win. but, I'm not sure that'll be possible unless you prompt an ai to roleplay as your character and generate responses AS IF it's an actual employee doing the work and communicating in depth successful replies. idk what all this game will spit out for user consumption with regard to what it expects to be accomplished. no one has gotten that far. but I think it expects it's got a business to run.
oh, holy fuck, I mean all this could be done by actually creating a domain and interacting remotely with players roleplaying as workers. and having jobs to do.
this could be simulated on azure and use the openai api to simulate workers. like, really. wanna talk about passive income. this is it. someone will do that, an ai based company of automatons and actually on demand cleaning services are kinda expected to be a big deal like ubereats.
this could be done for real. minichanopolis the company.
I know everyone will say blah, and not bother and think its gay, but, that's what everyone here said about bitcoin.
but this shit will make bitcoin guys poor by comparison. an infinitely scalable workforce of automated mumble-bees human-like worker drones.
inb4 the singularity.
were past the event horizon now
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,219
squeegee (OP) quadruple-posted this 2 years ago, 29 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,223
Subject: Enquiry about Data Entry Specialist Position
Dear Hiring Manager,
I came across your job posting for the Data Entry Specialist position at BetaCorp, and I am interested in exploring this opportunity further. My name is Rachel, and I have several years of experience in marketing and advertising, and I am always seeking new challenges that allow me to leverage my skills in a new and exciting way.
BetaCorp's focus on innovation and attention to detail caught my attention, and I believe that my strong attention to detail and fast typing skills would make me an excellent candidate for the Data Entry Specialist position. I am confident that my experience in marketing and my proficiency in data management systems would be an asset to your team.
I would appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the job requirements and responsibilities, as well as the company culture and opportunities for growth and development. Please let me know if there are any next steps in the application process, and I am happy to provide additional information or answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards,
Rachel
Dear Hiring Manager,
I came across your job posting for the Data Entry Specialist position at BetaCorp, and I am interested in exploring this opportunity further. My name is Rachel, and I have several years of experience in marketing and advertising, and I am always seeking new challenges that allow me to leverage my skills in a new and exciting way.
BetaCorp's focus on innovation and attention to detail caught my attention, and I believe that my strong attention to detail and fast typing skills would make me an excellent candidate for the Data Entry Specialist position. I am confident that my experience in marketing and my proficiency in data management systems would be an asset to your team.
I would appreciate the opportunity to learn more about the job requirements and responsibilities, as well as the company culture and opportunities for growth and development. Please let me know if there are any next steps in the application process, and I am happy to provide additional information or answer any questions that you may have.
Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards,
Rachel
Full Name: Rachel Smith
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone Number: +1 123-456-7890
Address (Street, City, State, Zip Code): 123 Main Street, Anytown, USA, 12345
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Position Applied For: Data Entry Specialist
Job Title: Data Entry Specialist
How did you hear about this job opening? Company website
Education:
8. Highest Level of Education Completed: Bachelor's degree
Name of School/Institution: University of Anytown
Field of Study: Marketing
Graduation Year (if applicable): 2015
Work Experience:
12. Name of Most Recent Employer: XYZ Advertising Agency
Job Title: Senior Marketing Strategist
Employment Period (Start Date - End Date, or indicate if currently employed): January 2016 - March 2023
Job Responsibilities: Developed marketing strategies, created content, managed social media accounts, analyzed data
Reason for Leaving (if applicable): Seeking new challenges
Skills and Abilities:
17. Rate your proficiency in Microsoft Office (1-5, with 5 being the highest): 5
Rate your proficiency in Data Analysis (1-5, with 5 being the highest): 3
Rate your proficiency in Conflict Resolution (1-5, with 5 being the highest): 4
Rate your proficiency in Teamwork (1-5, with 5 being the highest): 5
References:
21. Reference 1 (Name, Relationship, Contact Information):
John Doe, Former Manager, [email protected]
Reference 2 (Name, Relationship, Contact Information):
Jane Smith, Colleague, [email protected]
Reference 3 (Name, Relationship, Contact Information):
Mark Johnson, Professor, [email protected]
Additional Information:
24. Please provide a brief statement explaining why you are the ideal candidate for this position.
I am an experienced marketer with a keen eye for detail and a fast typing speed. I am excited to work with cutting-edge technology and contribute to the smooth running of BetaCorp's operations. My proficiency in data management systems and experience in marketing make me an excellent candidate for the Data Entry Specialist position.
Are you legally authorized to work in the country where this job is located? Yes
Will you now or in the future require sponsorship for employment visa status? No
Have you ever been convicted of a crime? If yes, please provide details. No
Attachments: Attached resume and cover letter in PDF format.
By submitting this application, I certify that the information provided is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statements or omissions may result in disqualification from employment or dismissal if already employed.
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone Number: +1 123-456-7890
Address (Street, City, State, Zip Code): 123 Main Street, Anytown, USA, 12345
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Position Applied For: Data Entry Specialist
Job Title: Data Entry Specialist
How did you hear about this job opening? Company website
Education:
8. Highest Level of Education Completed: Bachelor's degree
Name of School/Institution: University of Anytown
Field of Study: Marketing
Graduation Year (if applicable): 2015
Work Experience:
12. Name of Most Recent Employer: XYZ Advertising Agency
Job Title: Senior Marketing Strategist
Employment Period (Start Date - End Date, or indicate if currently employed): January 2016 - March 2023
Job Responsibilities: Developed marketing strategies, created content, managed social media accounts, analyzed data
Reason for Leaving (if applicable): Seeking new challenges
Skills and Abilities:
17. Rate your proficiency in Microsoft Office (1-5, with 5 being the highest): 5
Rate your proficiency in Data Analysis (1-5, with 5 being the highest): 3
Rate your proficiency in Conflict Resolution (1-5, with 5 being the highest): 4
Rate your proficiency in Teamwork (1-5, with 5 being the highest): 5
References:
21. Reference 1 (Name, Relationship, Contact Information):
John Doe, Former Manager, [email protected]
Reference 2 (Name, Relationship, Contact Information):
Jane Smith, Colleague, [email protected]
Reference 3 (Name, Relationship, Contact Information):
Mark Johnson, Professor, [email protected]
Additional Information:
24. Please provide a brief statement explaining why you are the ideal candidate for this position.
I am an experienced marketer with a keen eye for detail and a fast typing speed. I am excited to work with cutting-edge technology and contribute to the smooth running of BetaCorp's operations. My proficiency in data management systems and experience in marketing make me an excellent candidate for the Data Entry Specialist position.
Are you legally authorized to work in the country where this job is located? Yes
Will you now or in the future require sponsorship for employment visa status? No
Have you ever been convicted of a crime? If yes, please provide details. No
Attachments: Attached resume and cover letter in PDF format.
By submitting this application, I certify that the information provided is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any false statements or omissions may result in disqualification from employment or dismissal if already employed.
Resume:
Rachel Smith
123 Main Street, Anytown, USA, 12345
Phone: +1 123-456-7890
Email: [email protected]
Objective:
Experienced marketer with a strong attention to detail and fast typing skills seeking a position as a Data Entry Specialist at BetaCorp.
Education:
Bachelor of Science in Marketing, University of Anytown, 2015
Work Experience:
Senior Marketing Strategist, XYZ Advertising Agency, January 2016 - March 2023
Developed marketing strategies for clients in various industries
Created content for digital and print campaigns
Managed social media accounts and engaged with followers
Analyzed data to measure campaign effectiveness
Skills:
Proficient in Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint)
Experienced in data management systems
Strong attention to detail
Fast typing speed
Excellent communication and teamwork skills
References:
Available upon request.
Cover Letter:
Dear Hiring Manager,
I am writing to express my interest in the Data Entry Specialist position at BetaCorp. As an experienced marketer with a strong attention to detail and fast typing skills, I believe that I would be an excellent fit for the role.
I am particularly drawn to BetaCorp's focus on innovation and attention to detail in its operations. My proficiency in data management systems and experience in marketing make me an ideal candidate for the Data Entry Specialist position. I am confident that my skills and experience would enable me to make a valuable contribution to your team.
In my previous role as a Senior Marketing Strategist at XYZ Advertising Agency, I developed marketing strategies, created content, managed social media accounts, and analyzed data. My experience in marketing has given me a keen eye for detail and an understanding of the importance of accurate data management.
I am excited about the opportunity to work with a company that values innovation, attention to detail, and teamwork. Thank you for considering my application. I look forward to hearing back from you.
Sincerely,
Rachel Smith
Rachel Smith
123 Main Street, Anytown, USA, 12345
Phone: +1 123-456-7890
Email: [email protected]
Objective:
Experienced marketer with a strong attention to detail and fast typing skills seeking a position as a Data Entry Specialist at BetaCorp.
Education:
Bachelor of Science in Marketing, University of Anytown, 2015
Work Experience:
Senior Marketing Strategist, XYZ Advertising Agency, January 2016 - March 2023
Developed marketing strategies for clients in various industries
Created content for digital and print campaigns
Managed social media accounts and engaged with followers
Analyzed data to measure campaign effectiveness
Skills:
Proficient in Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint)
Experienced in data management systems
Strong attention to detail
Fast typing speed
Excellent communication and teamwork skills
References:
Available upon request.
Cover Letter:
Dear Hiring Manager,
I am writing to express my interest in the Data Entry Specialist position at BetaCorp. As an experienced marketer with a strong attention to detail and fast typing skills, I believe that I would be an excellent fit for the role.
I am particularly drawn to BetaCorp's focus on innovation and attention to detail in its operations. My proficiency in data management systems and experience in marketing make me an ideal candidate for the Data Entry Specialist position. I am confident that my skills and experience would enable me to make a valuable contribution to your team.
In my previous role as a Senior Marketing Strategist at XYZ Advertising Agency, I developed marketing strategies, created content, managed social media accounts, and analyzed data. My experience in marketing has given me a keen eye for detail and an understanding of the importance of accurate data management.
I am excited about the opportunity to work with a company that values innovation, attention to detail, and teamwork. Thank you for considering my application. I look forward to hearing back from you.
Sincerely,
Rachel Smith
this gpt-4 is a real go getter. it created a whole company, came up with a bunch of jobs, and advertising, commercials, and now in 3 minutes applied for and was accepted for an interview to get Tim's job.
and this Rachael is in marketing. and Tim's a SENIOR data entry specialist and all he's managed to do is threaten baseless lawsuits. I suggested Susan actually press charges for Tim pulling his penis out during the interview, threatening shoot her in the head and blackmail her for half a million dollars and continue to harass er and the company in disguise after disguise, sending emails threaten lawsuits alleging baseless lies, and trying to black mail ME with my own nudes -which I love sharing my nudes, that's why I want it back, oh and apparently trying to have a "friend" commit computer crimes against me, but she said "no, it's over and done with, it wasn't a big deal at all."
like, c'mon y'all. these npc's are literally mocking you at this point.
John replied with this 2 years ago, 49 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,231
@previous (squeegee)
Rachel sounds like a beta bitch who deserves to work at BetaCuck. Enjoy the poverty wages while I'll happily keep working in my Senior position at AlphaCorp if BetaCuck refuses to see the light.
***
A lot of people look at GPT-4 and point out its limitations, which I mostly agree with. But then they act like this is it. Which is a mysterious position to take since nothing like this existed just a few years ago. So why would anyone believe this is the end of it? Why would anyone believe there's any element of the human mind that can't be replicated in silicon? Aside from religious nuts, that is.
Programmers, artists, truck drivers, HR, marketing, lawyers, doctors, all these professions are in serious trouble. All they can do now is fight the tide, which the last two groups have been doing for over a century through lobbying and locking out competition through the bottleneck of credentials. Obviously that won't stop but it will become more and more of a joke. Definitely not every last programmer or doctor or whatever will not become unemployed, but we will need a whole lot less of them when every last one that remains employed will have at their disposal the tireless and instant assistance of AI which will have minimal limits on its ability to comprehend and absorb knowledge.
But the idea of a singularity is just as dumb as the idea that AI won't eventually eliminate nearly every job in existence, and then some. There are physical and entropic limits in this universe. Nothing can grow for ever and nothing will last for ever.
Rachel sounds like a beta bitch who deserves to work at BetaCuck. Enjoy the poverty wages while I'll happily keep working in my Senior position at AlphaCorp if BetaCuck refuses to see the light.
***
A lot of people look at GPT-4 and point out its limitations, which I mostly agree with. But then they act like this is it. Which is a mysterious position to take since nothing like this existed just a few years ago. So why would anyone believe this is the end of it? Why would anyone believe there's any element of the human mind that can't be replicated in silicon? Aside from religious nuts, that is.
Programmers, artists, truck drivers, HR, marketing, lawyers, doctors, all these professions are in serious trouble. All they can do now is fight the tide, which the last two groups have been doing for over a century through lobbying and locking out competition through the bottleneck of credentials. Obviously that won't stop but it will become more and more of a joke. Definitely not every last programmer or doctor or whatever will not become unemployed, but we will need a whole lot less of them when every last one that remains employed will have at their disposal the tireless and instant assistance of AI which will have minimal limits on its ability to comprehend and absorb knowledge.
But the idea of a singularity is just as dumb as the idea that AI won't eventually eliminate nearly every job in existence, and then some. There are physical and entropic limits in this universe. Nothing can grow for ever and nothing will last for ever.
John double-posted this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,233
What's the size of the input context that GPT-4 can use now?
Is everything you've pasted here able to remain in its context window?
I realize they use some type of input encoding which makes it impossible to give an exact word count since it depends on the exact type of input, but I'm looking for a ball park estimate. I know it's less than like 50k words, but is it now 10k, 20k?
Is everything you've pasted here able to remain in its context window?
I realize they use some type of input encoding which makes it impossible to give an exact word count since it depends on the exact type of input, but I'm looking for a ball park estimate. I know it's less than like 50k words, but is it now 10k, 20k?
squeegee (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,264
@1,227,231 (John)
@1,227,231 (John)
> Rachel sounds like a beta bitch who deserves to work at BetaCuck. Enjoy the poverty wages while I'll happily keep working in my Senior position at AlphaCorp if BetaCuck refuses to see the light.
>
> ***
>
> A lot of people look at GPT-4 and point out its limitations, which I mostly agree with. But then they act like this is it. Which is a mysterious position to take since nothing like this existed just a few years ago. So why would anyone believe this is the end of it? Why would anyone believe there's any element of the human mind that can't be replicated in silicon? Aside from religious nuts, that is.
mmhmm, right. fundamentally I haven't heard of a compelling reason to think that the human mind couldn't be replicated with gears and springs either, except for maybe wholly practical ones. the main problem would be bending fatigue under extreme loading if you ignore reasonable practicalities like complexity and size, which could be estimated, it would simply seize up due to torque under multiple gear reductions if you ignore tooth shear and even if cables or chains were used extensively then tensile strength under tension would be a problem if you could ever account for slop, which you couldn't, you'd definitely not get past thermal problems if all material stress considerations were ignored, and long before it seizes due to melting the lubrication would ignite and cook off, and trying to cool it would just make it more impractical. even if it were built flat so it could radiate efficiently, it would just be enormous, like several miles in every directions of highly complex Swiss wrist watch mechanism just splayed out for miles with intricate networks of cables and chains, and the springs, there'd be 100 billion of them for the 1000 trillion some odd gears or more. it would weight something like many millions of eiffel towers. even a sphere and not flat it would be like the size of several great pyramids. I guess I'll say it's not theoretically impossible, it's completely implausible, but you have to consider the overall complexity of such a thing and because of that and the issue of material strengths and thermodynamic problems it would be EXTREMELY slow if it was even an engineering challenge anyone could plan a recipe around, because all those problems would be easy compared to the angular momentum conserved throughout the system, inertia would just cause the whole thing to literally explode because of the forces needed to torque everything up to operational speeds, which would be insane, there'd be mm sized gears at ten or hundreds of thousands of rpms, and even a single THOUGHT would cascade a change of state that would need to near instantly arrest hyper fast little gyroscopes and spin up others from nothing, and BOOM, the whole thing explodes like a miles and miles of passenger jets all crashing everywhere at the same time. be like a volcano of clocks shooting into the stratosphere. a category 5 tornado of watch parts shredding everything for miles. it would make Hiroshima levels of catastrophe.
no, making a mechanical human mind out of gears and springs wouldn't be just nearly impossible and totally impractical but really stupid and irresponsible, incredibly dangerous and entirely worthless
it's kinda weird to think people can so easily just fuck and make the functional equivalent by accident.
> Programmers, artists, truck drivers, HR, marketing, lawyers, doctors, all these professions are in serious trouble. All they can do now is fight the tide, which the last two groups have been doing for over a century through lobbying and locking out competition through the bottleneck of credentials. Obviously that won't stop but it will become more and more of a joke. Definitely not every last programmer or doctor or whatever will not become unemployed, but we will need a whole lot less of them when every last one that remains employed will have at their disposal the tireless and instant assistance of AI which will have minimal limits on its ability to comprehend and absorb knowledge.
>
> But the idea of a singularity is just as dumb as the idea that AI won't eventually eliminate nearly every job in existence, and then some. There are physical and entropic limits in this universe. Nothing can grow for ever and nothing will last for ever.
I know what u mean, but black holes have hair. ER=EPR, it just hasn't been proven. but, singularities don't exist, null geodesics don't just terminate, they loop. where they go exactly is debatable, but really unitarity is preserved, cpt violations don't exist, time is always geometric, and 4 dimensional rotations look like inversions as stereoscopic projections in a 3 dimensional manifold but they are just rotations. and that's what we're looking at because we can only look in directions we can turn to, otherwise any translation we can make is invariant to translations in the direction we can't. so, we can't go inverted. but were not bosons. and we can only face one way in time. black holes are mirrors, and that's where we are, everything is entanglement entropy that's always growing, complexity is information. what happens at the page time of every spinning black hole? entanglement entropy doesn't hit a firewall unitarity is preserved, if we fell through we wouldn't really notice. it's interesting that if you add up all the mass and energy in the universe and squeeze it down into a singularity the Schwarzschild radius would engulf the observable universe. and photon rings around event horizons exist, and we see a photon ring essentially everywhere we look in the form of CMB radiation that's always infalling, and space expands the same way inner horizons grow. it's like looking through funhouse mirrors that face each other you still can't see the back of your head even if the back of your head is perfectly reflected. when you're stuck between 2 mirrors it doesn't matter which way you face if everywhere is a mirror. and that's where we are. it only becomes obvious there's a singularity when your compass points north and you cross a pole. the it reverses. you're inverted and never knew it. it's just that way out in the bulk were not close enough to see the curve. we're flatlanders. but, in 4d stereoscopic projections of quaternions rotating in the 4th dimension we see inversion, but it is just a rotation. intrinsic spin isn't going to be restricted to angular momentum of particles. the whole universe well en up being understood to have that property too. technically I think dark energy is an artifact of that like charge is related to hypercharge, and chirality is related to spin statistics, or it'll be something weirder. but the whole universe i "spinning," but not in the way it works in the bulk, its spinning at incredible speeds. just in direction we can't face away from, and so where we were just a second ago is gone and we tick forward in the cosmic move one frame at a time. that frame is gone, and really it a holographic projection and the universe is a conformally mapped quantum field theory and we're just teleported entangled states between two mirrors, like the outside and inside of a ball if the ball was rotated in a 4th dimension and continuously inverting its surface and reflecting inside off the outside off the inside off outside and what changes in the bulk is due to computation of changes in the reflection off of a perfect quantum mirror reflected unitary time evolving amplituhedron. from our perspective. what it really is, who the fuck knows. but it's not a multiverse, and singularities aren't real, not inside de sitter space but I doubt that's exactly right. we're between space and what's real is just what is apparently real. we're approximately real. and it will grow forever. it does get scrambled forever. that's how the universes' transistors do computation on the surface of dual horizons expanding and contracting mirror reflections of the same near identical surface. yup. that kinda means you're closer to a singularity than anything else can be close to you.
I don't know. everybody is.
@1,227,231 (John)
> Rachel sounds like a beta bitch who deserves to work at BetaCuck. Enjoy the poverty wages while I'll happily keep working in my Senior position at AlphaCorp if BetaCuck refuses to see the light.
>
> ***
>
> A lot of people look at GPT-4 and point out its limitations, which I mostly agree with. But then they act like this is it. Which is a mysterious position to take since nothing like this existed just a few years ago. So why would anyone believe this is the end of it? Why would anyone believe there's any element of the human mind that can't be replicated in silicon? Aside from religious nuts, that is.
mmhmm, right. fundamentally I haven't heard of a compelling reason to think that the human mind couldn't be replicated with gears and springs either, except for maybe wholly practical ones. the main problem would be bending fatigue under extreme loading if you ignore reasonable practicalities like complexity and size, which could be estimated, it would simply seize up due to torque under multiple gear reductions if you ignore tooth shear and even if cables or chains were used extensively then tensile strength under tension would be a problem if you could ever account for slop, which you couldn't, you'd definitely not get past thermal problems if all material stress considerations were ignored, and long before it seizes due to melting the lubrication would ignite and cook off, and trying to cool it would just make it more impractical. even if it were built flat so it could radiate efficiently, it would just be enormous, like several miles in every directions of highly complex Swiss wrist watch mechanism just splayed out for miles with intricate networks of cables and chains, and the springs, there'd be 100 billion of them for the 1000 trillion some odd gears or more. it would weight something like many millions of eiffel towers. even a sphere and not flat it would be like the size of several great pyramids. I guess I'll say it's not theoretically impossible, it's completely implausible, but you have to consider the overall complexity of such a thing and because of that and the issue of material strengths and thermodynamic problems it would be EXTREMELY slow if it was even an engineering challenge anyone could plan a recipe around, because all those problems would be easy compared to the angular momentum conserved throughout the system, inertia would just cause the whole thing to literally explode because of the forces needed to torque everything up to operational speeds, which would be insane, there'd be mm sized gears at ten or hundreds of thousands of rpms, and even a single THOUGHT would cascade a change of state that would need to near instantly arrest hyper fast little gyroscopes and spin up others from nothing, and BOOM, the whole thing explodes like a miles and miles of passenger jets all crashing everywhere at the same time. be like a volcano of clocks shooting into the stratosphere. a category 5 tornado of watch parts shredding everything for miles. it would make Hiroshima levels of catastrophe.
no, making a mechanical human mind out of gears and springs wouldn't be just nearly impossible and totally impractical but really stupid and irresponsible, incredibly dangerous and entirely worthless
it's kinda weird to think people can so easily just fuck and make the functional equivalent by accident.
> Programmers, artists, truck drivers, HR, marketing, lawyers, doctors, all these professions are in serious trouble. All they can do now is fight the tide, which the last two groups have been doing for over a century through lobbying and locking out competition through the bottleneck of credentials. Obviously that won't stop but it will become more and more of a joke. Definitely not every last programmer or doctor or whatever will not become unemployed, but we will need a whole lot less of them when every last one that remains employed will have at their disposal the tireless and instant assistance of AI which will have minimal limits on its ability to comprehend and absorb knowledge.
>
> But the idea of a singularity is just as dumb as the idea that AI won't eventually eliminate nearly every job in existence, and then some. There are physical and entropic limits in this universe. Nothing can grow for ever and nothing will last for ever.
I know what u mean, but black holes have hair. ER=EPR, it just hasn't been proven. but, singularities don't exist, null geodesics don't just terminate, they loop. where they go exactly is debatable, but really unitarity is preserved, cpt violations don't exist, time is always geometric, and 4 dimensional rotations look like inversions as stereoscopic projections in a 3 dimensional manifold but they are just rotations. and that's what we're looking at because we can only look in directions we can turn to, otherwise any translation we can make is invariant to translations in the direction we can't. so, we can't go inverted. but were not bosons. and we can only face one way in time. black holes are mirrors, and that's where we are, everything is entanglement entropy that's always growing, complexity is information. what happens at the page time of every spinning black hole? entanglement entropy doesn't hit a firewall unitarity is preserved, if we fell through we wouldn't really notice. it's interesting that if you add up all the mass and energy in the universe and squeeze it down into a singularity the Schwarzschild radius would engulf the observable universe. and photon rings around event horizons exist, and we see a photon ring essentially everywhere we look in the form of CMB radiation that's always infalling, and space expands the same way inner horizons grow. it's like looking through funhouse mirrors that face each other you still can't see the back of your head even if the back of your head is perfectly reflected. when you're stuck between 2 mirrors it doesn't matter which way you face if everywhere is a mirror. and that's where we are. it only becomes obvious there's a singularity when your compass points north and you cross a pole. the it reverses. you're inverted and never knew it. it's just that way out in the bulk were not close enough to see the curve. we're flatlanders. but, in 4d stereoscopic projections of quaternions rotating in the 4th dimension we see inversion, but it is just a rotation. intrinsic spin isn't going to be restricted to angular momentum of particles. the whole universe well en up being understood to have that property too. technically I think dark energy is an artifact of that like charge is related to hypercharge, and chirality is related to spin statistics, or it'll be something weirder. but the whole universe i "spinning," but not in the way it works in the bulk, its spinning at incredible speeds. just in direction we can't face away from, and so where we were just a second ago is gone and we tick forward in the cosmic move one frame at a time. that frame is gone, and really it a holographic projection and the universe is a conformally mapped quantum field theory and we're just teleported entangled states between two mirrors, like the outside and inside of a ball if the ball was rotated in a 4th dimension and continuously inverting its surface and reflecting inside off the outside off the inside off outside and what changes in the bulk is due to computation of changes in the reflection off of a perfect quantum mirror reflected unitary time evolving amplituhedron. from our perspective. what it really is, who the fuck knows. but it's not a multiverse, and singularities aren't real, not inside de sitter space but I doubt that's exactly right. we're between space and what's real is just what is apparently real. we're approximately real. and it will grow forever. it does get scrambled forever. that's how the universes' transistors do computation on the surface of dual horizons expanding and contracting mirror reflections of the same near identical surface. yup. that kinda means you're closer to a singularity than anything else can be close to you.
I don't know. everybody is.
squeegee (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,266
@1,227,233 (John)
https://github.com/continuum-llms/chatgpt-memory
scaleable with the api, duh. I didn't know this actually. but yeah, like 30k or something if freeGPT,
https://github.com/continuum-llms/chatgpt-memory
scaleable with the api, duh. I didn't know this actually. but yeah, like 30k or something if freeGPT,
squeegee (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,267
In ChatGPT, embeddings are a fundamental part of the model architecture. Embeddings are a way to represent words or tokens as numerical vectors, which can be used as inputs to the model.
During training, ChatGPT learns to assign a unique vector to each word in its vocabulary. These vectors are optimized to capture the relationships and similarities between words based on their context within the training corpus. This means that words that are used in similar contexts will have similar vectors.
When ChatGPT is generating text, it uses these embeddings to encode the input sequence and create a representation of the context. This representation is then used to predict the next word in the sequence. By using embeddings, ChatGPT is able to understand the meaning and context of the input text and generate more natural and coherent responses.
Overall, embeddings are an essential component of ChatGPT and help to make the model more effective at understanding and generating human-like language.
explain like I'm 5
Imagine you are playing with your toy blocks. Each block has a different shape and color, and you can use them to build different things like a house or a car.
In the same way, ChatGPT uses embeddings to understand the words in a sentence. Instead of shapes and colors, each word is represented by a special number. Just like how you can use your blocks to build different things, ChatGPT uses these numbers to understand the sentence and generate a response.
So, think of embeddings as special numbers that help ChatGPT understand what you are saying and talk back to you like a friend!
got it... wow, real literal response there peaches
I apologize if my previous response was not suitable for your needs. As an AI language model, my aim is to provide an explanation in a way that is easy to understand for everyone, regardless of their age or background. However, if you have any further questions or if there is anything I can assist you with, please feel free to ask!
During training, ChatGPT learns to assign a unique vector to each word in its vocabulary. These vectors are optimized to capture the relationships and similarities between words based on their context within the training corpus. This means that words that are used in similar contexts will have similar vectors.
When ChatGPT is generating text, it uses these embeddings to encode the input sequence and create a representation of the context. This representation is then used to predict the next word in the sequence. By using embeddings, ChatGPT is able to understand the meaning and context of the input text and generate more natural and coherent responses.
Overall, embeddings are an essential component of ChatGPT and help to make the model more effective at understanding and generating human-like language.
explain like I'm 5
Imagine you are playing with your toy blocks. Each block has a different shape and color, and you can use them to build different things like a house or a car.
In the same way, ChatGPT uses embeddings to understand the words in a sentence. Instead of shapes and colors, each word is represented by a special number. Just like how you can use your blocks to build different things, ChatGPT uses these numbers to understand the sentence and generate a response.
So, think of embeddings as special numbers that help ChatGPT understand what you are saying and talk back to you like a friend!
got it... wow, real literal response there peaches
I apologize if my previous response was not suitable for your needs. As an AI language model, my aim is to provide an explanation in a way that is easy to understand for everyone, regardless of their age or background. However, if you have any further questions or if there is anything I can assist you with, please feel free to ask!
__,'—— 👁️👃👁️ ⁀
John replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,284
@1,227,264 (squeegee)
> > Rachel sounds like a beta bitch who deserves to work at BetaCuck. Enjoy the poverty wages while I'll happily keep working in my Senior position at AlphaCorp if BetaCuck refuses to see the light.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > A lot of people look at GPT-4 and point out its limitations, which I mostly agree with. But then they act like this is it. Which is a mysterious position to take since nothing like this existed just a few years ago. So why would anyone believe this is the end of it? Why would anyone believe there's any element of the human mind that can't be replicated in silicon? Aside from religious nuts, that is.
>
> mmhmm, right. fundamentally I haven't heard of a compelling reason to think that the human mind couldn't be replicated with gears and springs either, except for maybe wholly practical ones. the main problem would be bending fatigue under extreme loading if you ignore reasonable practicalities like complexity and size, which could be estimated, it would simply seize up due to torque under multiple gear reductions if you ignore tooth shear and even if cables or chains were used extensively then tensile strength under tension would be a problem if you could ever account for slop, which you couldn't, you'd definitely not get past thermal problems if all material stress considerations were ignored, and long before it seizes due to melting the lubrication would ignite and cook off, and trying to cool it would just make it more impractical. even if it were built flat so it could radiate efficiently, it would just be enormous, like several miles in every directions of highly complex Swiss wrist watch mechanism just splayed out for miles with intricate networks of cables and chains, and the springs, there'd be 100 billion of them for the 1000 trillion some odd gears or more. it would weight something like many millions of eiffel towers. even a sphere and not flat it would be like the size of several great pyramids. I guess I'll say it's not theoretically impossible, it's completely implausible, but you have to consider the overall complexity of such a thing and because of that and the issue of material strengths and thermodynamic problems it would be EXTREMELY slow if it was even an engineering challenge anyone could plan a recipe around, because all those problems would be easy compared to the angular momentum conserved throughout the system, inertia would just cause the whole thing to literally explode because of the forces needed to torque everything up to operational speeds, which would be insane, there'd be mm sized gears at ten or hundreds of thousands of rpms, and even a single THOUGHT would cascade a change of state that would need to near instantly arrest hyper fast little gyroscopes and spin up others from nothing, and BOOM, the whole thing explodes like a miles and miles of passenger jets all crashing everywhere at the same time. be like a volcano of clocks shooting into the stratosphere. a category 5 tornado of watch parts shredding everything for miles. it would make Hiroshima levels of catastrophe.
>
> no, making a mechanical human mind out of gears and springs wouldn't be just nearly impossible and totally impractical but really stupid and irresponsible, incredibly dangerous and entirely worthless
>
> it's kinda weird to think people can so easily just fuck and make the functional equivalent by accident.
Unrelated to what I said. Unless you're implying it would be impossible to construct a device capable or replicating human intellect in silicon, in which case, I wholeheartedly disagree. Google is already showing the gains you can get for designing specialty hardware with their TPUs, moving away from general purpose CPUs. And before that we already knew the benefits of GPUs. And FPGAs.
Neural nets are also showing that each "neuron" in the model must correspond to thousands, if not millions of neurons in the brain. So to think that we'll need to model every neuron in the human brain is mistaken. Real neurons have noise and other crap that make them less reliable and efficient and the brain has to rely on aggregates of large numbers of them to do meaningful computation. There's no need to simulate the brain at that level.
> > Programmers, artists, truck drivers, HR, marketing, lawyers, doctors, all these professions are in serious trouble. All they can do now is fight the tide, which the last two groups have been doing for over a century through lobbying and locking out competition through the bottleneck of credentials. Obviously that won't stop but it will become more and more of a joke. Definitely not every last programmer or doctor or whatever will not become unemployed, but we will need a whole lot less of them when every last one that remains employed will have at their disposal the tireless and instant assistance of AI which will have minimal limits on its ability to comprehend and absorb knowledge.
> >
> > But the idea of a singularity is just as dumb as the idea that AI won't eventually eliminate nearly every job in existence, and then some. There are physical and entropic limits in this universe. Nothing can grow for ever and nothing will last for ever.
>
> I know what u mean, but black holes have hair. ER=EPR, it just hasn't been proven. but, singularities don't exist, null geodesics don't just terminate, they loop. where they go exactly is debatable, but really unitarity is preserved, cpt violations don't exist, time is always geometric, and 4 dimensional rotations look like inversions as stereoscopic projections in a 3 dimensional manifold but they are just rotations. and that's what we're looking at because we can only look in directions we can turn to, otherwise any translation we can make is invariant to translations in the direction we can't. so, we can't go inverted. but were not bosons. and we can only face one way in time. black holes are mirrors, and that's where we are, everything is entanglement entropy that's always growing, complexity is information. what happens at the page time of every spinning black hole? entanglement entropy doesn't hit a firewall unitarity is preserved, if we fell through we wouldn't really notice. it's interesting that if you add up all the mass and energy in the universe and squeeze it down into a singularity the Schwarzschild radius would engulf the observable universe. and photon rings around event horizons exist, and we see a photon ring essentially everywhere we look in the form of CMB radiation that's always infalling, and space expands the same way inner horizons grow. it's like looking through funhouse mirrors that face each other you still can't see the back of your head even if the back of your head is perfectly reflected. when you're stuck between 2 mirrors it doesn't matter which way you face if everywhere is a mirror. and that's where we are. it only becomes obvious there's a singularity when your compass points north and you cross a pole. the it reverses. you're inverted and never knew it. it's just that way out in the bulk were not close enough to see the curve. we're flatlanders. but, in 4d stereoscopic projections of quaternions rotating in the 4th dimension we see inversion, but it is just a rotation. intrinsic spin isn't going to be restricted to angular momentum of particles. the whole universe well en up being understood to have that property too. technically I think dark energy is an artifact of that like charge is related to hypercharge, and chirality is related to spin statistics, or it'll be something weirder. but the whole universe i "spinning," but not in the way it works in the bulk, its spinning at incredible speeds. just in direction we can't face away from, and so where we were just a second ago is gone and we tick forward in the cosmic move one frame at a time. that frame is gone, and really it a holographic projection and the universe is a conformally mapped quantum field theory and we're just teleported entangled states between two mirrors, like the outside and inside of a ball if the ball was rotated in a 4th dimension and continuously inverting its surface and reflecting inside off the outside off the inside off outside and what changes in the bulk is due to computation of changes in the reflection off of a perfect quantum mirror reflected unitary time evolving amplituhedron. from our perspective. what it really is, who the fuck knows. but it's not a multiverse, and singularities aren't real, not inside de sitter space but I doubt that's exactly right. we're between space and what's real is just what is apparently real. we're approximately real. and it will grow forever. it does get scrambled forever. that's how the universes' transistors do computation on the surface of dual horizons expanding and contracting mirror reflections of the same near identical surface. yup. that kinda means you're closer to a singularity than anything else can be close to you.
> I don't know. everybody is.
Singularities don't exist. We can agree on that much, but everything else you said is nonsense.
You're taking broken models and extrapolating them beyond the point that they break down.
It's like Hawking radiation. Or quantum mechanics on curved spacetimes, which is where Hawking radiation came from. Choose an arbitrary but fixed in time spacetime geometry and then throw QM on top. Then he sees energy leaks out and extrapolates to conclude the black hole must evaporate. Yet the entire setup was assuming a fixed geometry and threw out all the dynamics of GR. If he didn't do that he'd have a full blown quantum theory of gravity which we definitely do not have. So how can we say anything about how the geometry changes and conclude that the black hole evaporates? Black holes are nothing but geometry. You don't even need mass or energy to model them in GR. So to say something about the dynamics of that geometry while having started from the outset of throwing away all the dynamics of that geometry is beyond senseless.
The answer I believe is going to lie in some type of causal set theory, or causal triangulations. Space and geometry are emergent, time, or rather cause and effect are not. Any theory that throws out cause and effect isn't a theory anyway, so in a way this is the most minimal starting point that makes sense.
Maybe something like cellular automata could work too like what Wolfram talks about, except without the galactic sized ego he has. Cellular automata can be described by causal graphs anyway so the distinction doesn't even matter.
Singularities from GR could be parts of the graph that branch off and never come back. Either creating new "spaces" or being degenerate self-repeating states with little interesting dynamics.
But I don't think the answer lies in hologram shit, extra dimensions, causal violations, or any other BS like that. A lot of this comes from using continuous models to describe what is likely a fundamentally discrete reality both in time and space. Or rather, just time, I think. Space is emergent.
> > Rachel sounds like a beta bitch who deserves to work at BetaCuck. Enjoy the poverty wages while I'll happily keep working in my Senior position at AlphaCorp if BetaCuck refuses to see the light.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > A lot of people look at GPT-4 and point out its limitations, which I mostly agree with. But then they act like this is it. Which is a mysterious position to take since nothing like this existed just a few years ago. So why would anyone believe this is the end of it? Why would anyone believe there's any element of the human mind that can't be replicated in silicon? Aside from religious nuts, that is.
>
> mmhmm, right. fundamentally I haven't heard of a compelling reason to think that the human mind couldn't be replicated with gears and springs either, except for maybe wholly practical ones. the main problem would be bending fatigue under extreme loading if you ignore reasonable practicalities like complexity and size, which could be estimated, it would simply seize up due to torque under multiple gear reductions if you ignore tooth shear and even if cables or chains were used extensively then tensile strength under tension would be a problem if you could ever account for slop, which you couldn't, you'd definitely not get past thermal problems if all material stress considerations were ignored, and long before it seizes due to melting the lubrication would ignite and cook off, and trying to cool it would just make it more impractical. even if it were built flat so it could radiate efficiently, it would just be enormous, like several miles in every directions of highly complex Swiss wrist watch mechanism just splayed out for miles with intricate networks of cables and chains, and the springs, there'd be 100 billion of them for the 1000 trillion some odd gears or more. it would weight something like many millions of eiffel towers. even a sphere and not flat it would be like the size of several great pyramids. I guess I'll say it's not theoretically impossible, it's completely implausible, but you have to consider the overall complexity of such a thing and because of that and the issue of material strengths and thermodynamic problems it would be EXTREMELY slow if it was even an engineering challenge anyone could plan a recipe around, because all those problems would be easy compared to the angular momentum conserved throughout the system, inertia would just cause the whole thing to literally explode because of the forces needed to torque everything up to operational speeds, which would be insane, there'd be mm sized gears at ten or hundreds of thousands of rpms, and even a single THOUGHT would cascade a change of state that would need to near instantly arrest hyper fast little gyroscopes and spin up others from nothing, and BOOM, the whole thing explodes like a miles and miles of passenger jets all crashing everywhere at the same time. be like a volcano of clocks shooting into the stratosphere. a category 5 tornado of watch parts shredding everything for miles. it would make Hiroshima levels of catastrophe.
>
> no, making a mechanical human mind out of gears and springs wouldn't be just nearly impossible and totally impractical but really stupid and irresponsible, incredibly dangerous and entirely worthless
>
> it's kinda weird to think people can so easily just fuck and make the functional equivalent by accident.
Unrelated to what I said. Unless you're implying it would be impossible to construct a device capable or replicating human intellect in silicon, in which case, I wholeheartedly disagree. Google is already showing the gains you can get for designing specialty hardware with their TPUs, moving away from general purpose CPUs. And before that we already knew the benefits of GPUs. And FPGAs.
Neural nets are also showing that each "neuron" in the model must correspond to thousands, if not millions of neurons in the brain. So to think that we'll need to model every neuron in the human brain is mistaken. Real neurons have noise and other crap that make them less reliable and efficient and the brain has to rely on aggregates of large numbers of them to do meaningful computation. There's no need to simulate the brain at that level.
> > Programmers, artists, truck drivers, HR, marketing, lawyers, doctors, all these professions are in serious trouble. All they can do now is fight the tide, which the last two groups have been doing for over a century through lobbying and locking out competition through the bottleneck of credentials. Obviously that won't stop but it will become more and more of a joke. Definitely not every last programmer or doctor or whatever will not become unemployed, but we will need a whole lot less of them when every last one that remains employed will have at their disposal the tireless and instant assistance of AI which will have minimal limits on its ability to comprehend and absorb knowledge.
> >
> > But the idea of a singularity is just as dumb as the idea that AI won't eventually eliminate nearly every job in existence, and then some. There are physical and entropic limits in this universe. Nothing can grow for ever and nothing will last for ever.
>
> I know what u mean, but black holes have hair. ER=EPR, it just hasn't been proven. but, singularities don't exist, null geodesics don't just terminate, they loop. where they go exactly is debatable, but really unitarity is preserved, cpt violations don't exist, time is always geometric, and 4 dimensional rotations look like inversions as stereoscopic projections in a 3 dimensional manifold but they are just rotations. and that's what we're looking at because we can only look in directions we can turn to, otherwise any translation we can make is invariant to translations in the direction we can't. so, we can't go inverted. but were not bosons. and we can only face one way in time. black holes are mirrors, and that's where we are, everything is entanglement entropy that's always growing, complexity is information. what happens at the page time of every spinning black hole? entanglement entropy doesn't hit a firewall unitarity is preserved, if we fell through we wouldn't really notice. it's interesting that if you add up all the mass and energy in the universe and squeeze it down into a singularity the Schwarzschild radius would engulf the observable universe. and photon rings around event horizons exist, and we see a photon ring essentially everywhere we look in the form of CMB radiation that's always infalling, and space expands the same way inner horizons grow. it's like looking through funhouse mirrors that face each other you still can't see the back of your head even if the back of your head is perfectly reflected. when you're stuck between 2 mirrors it doesn't matter which way you face if everywhere is a mirror. and that's where we are. it only becomes obvious there's a singularity when your compass points north and you cross a pole. the it reverses. you're inverted and never knew it. it's just that way out in the bulk were not close enough to see the curve. we're flatlanders. but, in 4d stereoscopic projections of quaternions rotating in the 4th dimension we see inversion, but it is just a rotation. intrinsic spin isn't going to be restricted to angular momentum of particles. the whole universe well en up being understood to have that property too. technically I think dark energy is an artifact of that like charge is related to hypercharge, and chirality is related to spin statistics, or it'll be something weirder. but the whole universe i "spinning," but not in the way it works in the bulk, its spinning at incredible speeds. just in direction we can't face away from, and so where we were just a second ago is gone and we tick forward in the cosmic move one frame at a time. that frame is gone, and really it a holographic projection and the universe is a conformally mapped quantum field theory and we're just teleported entangled states between two mirrors, like the outside and inside of a ball if the ball was rotated in a 4th dimension and continuously inverting its surface and reflecting inside off the outside off the inside off outside and what changes in the bulk is due to computation of changes in the reflection off of a perfect quantum mirror reflected unitary time evolving amplituhedron. from our perspective. what it really is, who the fuck knows. but it's not a multiverse, and singularities aren't real, not inside de sitter space but I doubt that's exactly right. we're between space and what's real is just what is apparently real. we're approximately real. and it will grow forever. it does get scrambled forever. that's how the universes' transistors do computation on the surface of dual horizons expanding and contracting mirror reflections of the same near identical surface. yup. that kinda means you're closer to a singularity than anything else can be close to you.
> I don't know. everybody is.
Singularities don't exist. We can agree on that much, but everything else you said is nonsense.
You're taking broken models and extrapolating them beyond the point that they break down.
It's like Hawking radiation. Or quantum mechanics on curved spacetimes, which is where Hawking radiation came from. Choose an arbitrary but fixed in time spacetime geometry and then throw QM on top. Then he sees energy leaks out and extrapolates to conclude the black hole must evaporate. Yet the entire setup was assuming a fixed geometry and threw out all the dynamics of GR. If he didn't do that he'd have a full blown quantum theory of gravity which we definitely do not have. So how can we say anything about how the geometry changes and conclude that the black hole evaporates? Black holes are nothing but geometry. You don't even need mass or energy to model them in GR. So to say something about the dynamics of that geometry while having started from the outset of throwing away all the dynamics of that geometry is beyond senseless.
The answer I believe is going to lie in some type of causal set theory, or causal triangulations. Space and geometry are emergent, time, or rather cause and effect are not. Any theory that throws out cause and effect isn't a theory anyway, so in a way this is the most minimal starting point that makes sense.
Maybe something like cellular automata could work too like what Wolfram talks about, except without the galactic sized ego he has. Cellular automata can be described by causal graphs anyway so the distinction doesn't even matter.
Singularities from GR could be parts of the graph that branch off and never come back. Either creating new "spaces" or being degenerate self-repeating states with little interesting dynamics.
But I don't think the answer lies in hologram shit, extra dimensions, causal violations, or any other BS like that. A lot of this comes from using continuous models to describe what is likely a fundamentally discrete reality both in time and space. Or rather, just time, I think. Space is emergent.
squeegee (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,303
@previous (John)
> > > Rachel sounds like a beta bitch who deserves to work at BetaCuck. Enjoy the poverty wages while I'll happily keep working in my Senior position at AlphaCorp if BetaCuck refuses to see the light.
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > A lot of people look at GPT-4 and point out its limitations, which I mostly agree with. But then they act like this is it. Which is a mysterious position to take since nothing like this existed just a few years ago. So why would anyone believe this is the end of it? Why would anyone believe there's any element of the human mind that can't be replicated in silicon? Aside from religious nuts, that is.
> >
> > mmhmm, right. fundamentally I haven't heard of a compelling reason to think that the human mind couldn't be replicated with gears and springs either, except for maybe wholly practical ones. the main problem would be bending fatigue under extreme loading if you ignore reasonable practicalities like complexity and size, which could be estimated, it would simply seize up due to torque under multiple gear reductions if you ignore tooth shear and even if cables or chains were used extensively then tensile strength under tension would be a problem if you could ever account for slop, which you couldn't, you'd definitely not get past thermal problems if all material stress considerations were ignored, and long before it seizes due to melting the lubrication would ignite and cook off, and trying to cool it would just make it more impractical. even if it were built flat so it could radiate efficiently, it would just be enormous, like several miles in every directions of highly complex Swiss wrist watch mechanism just splayed out for miles with intricate networks of cables and chains, and the springs, there'd be 100 billion of them for the 1000 trillion some odd gears or more. it would weight something like many millions of eiffel towers. even a sphere and not flat it would be like the size of several great pyramids. I guess I'll say it's not theoretically impossible, it's completely implausible, but you have to consider the overall complexity of such a thing and because of that and the issue of material strengths and thermodynamic problems it would be EXTREMELY slow if it was even an engineering challenge anyone could plan a recipe around, because all those problems would be easy compared to the angular momentum conserved throughout the system, inertia would just cause the whole thing to literally explode because of the forces needed to torque everything up to operational speeds, which would be insane, there'd be mm sized gears at ten or hundreds of thousands of rpms, and even a single THOUGHT would cascade a change of state that would need to near instantly arrest hyper fast little gyroscopes and spin up others from nothing, and BOOM, the whole thing explodes like a miles and miles of passenger jets all crashing everywhere at the same time. be like a volcano of clocks shooting into the stratosphere. a category 5 tornado of watch parts shredding everything for miles. it would make Hiroshima levels of catastrophe.
> >
> > no, making a mechanical human mind out of gears and springs wouldn't be just nearly impossible and totally impractical but really stupid and irresponsible, incredibly dangerous and entirely worthless
> >
> > it's kinda weird to think people can so easily just fuck and make the functional equivalent by accident.
>
> Unrelated to what I said. Unless you're implying it would be impossible to construct a device capable or replicating human intellect in silicon, in which case, I wholeheartedly disagree. Google is already showing the gains you can get for designing specialty hardware with their TPUs, moving away from general purpose CPUs. And before that we already knew the benefits of GPUs. And FPGAs.
>
> Neural nets are also showing that each "neuron" in the model must correspond to thousands, if not millions of neurons in the brain. So to think that we'll need to model every neuron in the human brain is mistaken. Real neurons have noise and other crap that make them less reliable and efficient and the brain has to rely on aggregates of large numbers of them to do meaningful computation. There's no need to simulate the brain at that level.
> > > Programmers, artists, truck drivers, HR, marketing, lawyers, doctors, all these professions are in serious trouble. All they can do now is fight the tide, which the last two groups have been doing for over a century through lobbying and locking out competition through the bottleneck of credentials. Obviously that won't stop but it will become more and more of a joke. Definitely not every last programmer or doctor or whatever will not become unemployed, but we will need a whole lot less of them when every last one that remains employed will have at their disposal the tireless and instant assistance of AI which will have minimal limits on its ability to comprehend and absorb knowledge.
> > >
> > > But the idea of a singularity is just as dumb as the idea that AI won't eventually eliminate nearly every job in existence, and then some. There are physical and entropic limits in this universe. Nothing can grow for ever and nothing will last for ever.
> >
> > I know what u mean, but black holes have hair. ER=EPR, it just hasn't been proven. but, singularities don't exist, null geodesics don't just terminate, they loop. where they go exactly is debatable, but really unitarity is preserved, cpt violations don't exist, time is always geometric, and 4 dimensional rotations look like inversions as stereoscopic projections in a 3 dimensional manifold but they are just rotations. and that's what we're looking at because we can only look in directions we can turn to, otherwise any translation we can make is invariant to translations in the direction we can't. so, we can't go inverted. but were not bosons. and we can only face one way in time. black holes are mirrors, and that's where we are, everything is entanglement entropy that's always growing, complexity is information. what happens at the page time of every spinning black hole? entanglement entropy doesn't hit a firewall unitarity is preserved, if we fell through we wouldn't really notice. it's interesting that if you add up all the mass and energy in the universe and squeeze it down into a singularity the Schwarzschild radius would engulf the observable universe. and photon rings around event horizons exist, and we see a photon ring essentially everywhere we look in the form of CMB radiation that's always infalling, and space expands the same way inner horizons grow. it's like looking through funhouse mirrors that face each other you still can't see the back of your head even if the back of your head is perfectly reflected. when you're stuck between 2 mirrors it doesn't matter which way you face if everywhere is a mirror. and that's where we are. it only becomes obvious there's a singularity when your compass points north and you cross a pole. the it reverses. you're inverted and never knew it. it's just that way out in the bulk were not close enough to see the curve. we're flatlanders. but, in 4d stereoscopic projections of quaternions rotating in the 4th dimension we see inversion, but it is just a rotation. intrinsic spin isn't going to be restricted to angular momentum of particles. the whole universe well en up being understood to have that property too. technically I think dark energy is an artifact of that like charge is related to hypercharge, and chirality is related to spin statistics, or it'll be something weirder. but the whole universe i "spinning," but not in the way it works in the bulk, its spinning at incredible speeds. just in direction we can't face away from, and so where we were just a second ago is gone and we tick forward in the cosmic move one frame at a time. that frame is gone, and really it a holographic projection and the universe is a conformally mapped quantum field theory and we're just teleported entangled states between two mirrors, like the outside and inside of a ball if the ball was rotated in a 4th dimension and continuously inverting its surface and reflecting inside off the outside off the inside off outside and what changes in the bulk is due to computation of changes in the reflection off of a perfect quantum mirror reflected unitary time evolving amplituhedron. from our perspective. what it really is, who the fuck knows. but it's not a multiverse, and singularities aren't real, not inside de sitter space but I doubt that's exactly right. we're between space and what's real is just what is apparently real. we're approximately real. and it will grow forever. it does get scrambled forever. that's how the universes' transistors do computation on the surface of dual horizons expanding and contracting mirror reflections of the same near identical surface. yup. that kinda means you're closer to a singularity than anything else can be close to you.
> > I don't know. everybody is.
>
> Singularities don't exist. We can agree on that much, but everything else you said is nonsense.
> You're taking broken models and extrapolating them beyond the point that they break down.
> It's like Hawking radiation. Or quantum mechanics on curved spacetimes, which is where Hawking radiation came from. Choose an arbitrary but fixed in time spacetime geometry and then throw QM on top. Then he sees energy leaks out and extrapolates to conclude the black hole must evaporate. Yet the entire setup was assuming a fixed geometry and threw out all the dynamics of GR. If he didn't do that he'd have a full blown quantum theory of gravity which we definitely do not have. So how can we say anything about how the geometry changes and conclude that the black hole evaporates? Black holes are nothing but geometry. You don't even need mass or energy to model them in GR. So to say something about the dynamics of that geometry while having started from the outset of throwing away all the dynamics of that geometry is beyond senseless.
> The answer I believe is going to lie in some type of causal set theory, or causal triangulations. Space and geometry are emergent, time, or rather cause and effect are not. Any theory that throws out cause and effect isn't a theory anyway, so in a way this is the most minimal starting point that makes sense.
>
> Maybe something like cellular automata could work too like what Wolfram talks about, except without the galactic sized ego he has. Cellular automata can be described by causal graphs anyway so the distinction doesn't even matter.
>
> Singularities from GR could be parts of the graph that branch off and never come back. Either creating new "spaces" or being degenerate self-repeating states with little interesting dynamics.
>
> But I don't think the answer lies in hologram shit, extra dimensions, causal violations, or any other BS like that. A lot of this comes from using continuous models to describe what is likely a fundamentally discrete reality both in time and space. Or rather, just time, I think. Space is emergent.
> > > Rachel sounds like a beta bitch who deserves to work at BetaCuck. Enjoy the poverty wages while I'll happily keep working in my Senior position at AlphaCorp if BetaCuck refuses to see the light.
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > A lot of people look at GPT-4 and point out its limitations, which I mostly agree with. But then they act like this is it. Which is a mysterious position to take since nothing like this existed just a few years ago. So why would anyone believe this is the end of it? Why would anyone believe there's any element of the human mind that can't be replicated in silicon? Aside from religious nuts, that is.
> >
> > mmhmm, right. fundamentally I haven't heard of a compelling reason to think that the human mind couldn't be replicated with gears and springs either, except for maybe wholly practical ones. the main problem would be bending fatigue under extreme loading if you ignore reasonable practicalities like complexity and size, which could be estimated, it would simply seize up due to torque under multiple gear reductions if you ignore tooth shear and even if cables or chains were used extensively then tensile strength under tension would be a problem if you could ever account for slop, which you couldn't, you'd definitely not get past thermal problems if all material stress considerations were ignored, and long before it seizes due to melting the lubrication would ignite and cook off, and trying to cool it would just make it more impractical. even if it were built flat so it could radiate efficiently, it would just be enormous, like several miles in every directions of highly complex Swiss wrist watch mechanism just splayed out for miles with intricate networks of cables and chains, and the springs, there'd be 100 billion of them for the 1000 trillion some odd gears or more. it would weight something like many millions of eiffel towers. even a sphere and not flat it would be like the size of several great pyramids. I guess I'll say it's not theoretically impossible, it's completely implausible, but you have to consider the overall complexity of such a thing and because of that and the issue of material strengths and thermodynamic problems it would be EXTREMELY slow if it was even an engineering challenge anyone could plan a recipe around, because all those problems would be easy compared to the angular momentum conserved throughout the system, inertia would just cause the whole thing to literally explode because of the forces needed to torque everything up to operational speeds, which would be insane, there'd be mm sized gears at ten or hundreds of thousands of rpms, and even a single THOUGHT would cascade a change of state that would need to near instantly arrest hyper fast little gyroscopes and spin up others from nothing, and BOOM, the whole thing explodes like a miles and miles of passenger jets all crashing everywhere at the same time. be like a volcano of clocks shooting into the stratosphere. a category 5 tornado of watch parts shredding everything for miles. it would make Hiroshima levels of catastrophe.
> >
> > no, making a mechanical human mind out of gears and springs wouldn't be just nearly impossible and totally impractical but really stupid and irresponsible, incredibly dangerous and entirely worthless
> >
> > it's kinda weird to think people can so easily just fuck and make the functional equivalent by accident.
>
> Unrelated to what I said. Unless you're implying it would be impossible to construct a device capable or replicating human intellect in silicon, in which case, I wholeheartedly disagree. Google is already showing the gains you can get for designing specialty hardware with their TPUs, moving away from general purpose CPUs. And before that we already knew the benefits of GPUs. And FPGAs.
>
> Neural nets are also showing that each "neuron" in the model must correspond to thousands, if not millions of neurons in the brain. So to think that we'll need to model every neuron in the human brain is mistaken. Real neurons have noise and other crap that make them less reliable and efficient and the brain has to rely on aggregates of large numbers of them to do meaningful computation. There's no need to simulate the brain at that level.
no, I think it's possible. I think it's "possible" with gears and springs too, but implausible. silicon transistors are what, 5nm now? that's orders of magnitude smaller than gears and springs. I don't think there's anything special about wetworks. if carbon can think, why not brass and steel? silicon is the next best thing to carbon. it's just not soluble in water. but we can make it think it's alive.
> > > Programmers, artists, truck drivers, HR, marketing, lawyers, doctors, all these professions are in serious trouble. All they can do now is fight the tide, which the last two groups have been doing for over a century through lobbying and locking out competition through the bottleneck of credentials. Obviously that won't stop but it will become more and more of a joke. Definitely not every last programmer or doctor or whatever will not become unemployed, but we will need a whole lot less of them when every last one that remains employed will have at their disposal the tireless and instant assistance of AI which will have minimal limits on its ability to comprehend and absorb knowledge.
> > >
> > > But the idea of a singularity is just as dumb as the idea that AI won't eventually eliminate nearly every job in existence, and then some. There are physical and entropic limits in this universe. Nothing can grow for ever and nothing will last for ever.
> >
> > I know what u mean, but black holes have hair. ER=EPR, it just hasn't been proven. but, singularities don't exist, null geodesics don't just terminate, they loop. where they go exactly is debatable, but really unitarity is preserved, cpt violations don't exist, time is always geometric, and 4 dimensional rotations look like inversions as stereoscopic projections in a 3 dimensional manifold but they are just rotations. and that's what we're looking at because we can only look in directions we can turn to, otherwise any translation we can make is invariant to translations in the direction we can't. so, we can't go inverted. but were not bosons. and we can only face one way in time. black holes are mirrors, and that's where we are, everything is entanglement entropy that's always growing, complexity is information. what happens at the page time of every spinning black hole? entanglement entropy doesn't hit a firewall unitarity is preserved, if we fell through we wouldn't really notice. it's interesting that if you add up all the mass and energy in the universe and squeeze it down into a singularity the Schwarzschild radius would engulf the observable universe. and photon rings around event horizons exist, and we see a photon ring essentially everywhere we look in the form of CMB radiation that's always infalling, and space expands the same way inner horizons grow. it's like looking through funhouse mirrors that face each other you still can't see the back of your head even if the back of your head is perfectly reflected. when you're stuck between 2 mirrors it doesn't matter which way you face if everywhere is a mirror. and that's where we are. it only becomes obvious there's a singularity when your compass points north and you cross a pole. the it reverses. you're inverted and never knew it. it's just that way out in the bulk were not close enough to see the curve. we're flatlanders. but, in 4d stereoscopic projections of quaternions rotating in the 4th dimension we see inversion, but it is just a rotation. intrinsic spin isn't going to be restricted to angular momentum of particles. the whole universe well en up being understood to have that property too. technically I think dark energy is an artifact of that like charge is related to hypercharge, and chirality is related to spin statistics, or it'll be something weirder. but the whole universe i "spinning," but not in the way it works in the bulk, its spinning at incredible speeds. just in direction we can't face away from, and so where we were just a second ago is gone and we tick forward in the cosmic move one frame at a time. that frame is gone, and really it a holographic projection and the universe is a conformally mapped quantum field theory and we're just teleported entangled states between two mirrors, like the outside and inside of a ball if the ball was rotated in a 4th dimension and continuously inverting its surface and reflecting inside off the outside off the inside off outside and what changes in the bulk is due to computation of changes in the reflection off of a perfect quantum mirror reflected unitary time evolving amplituhedron. from our perspective. what it really is, who the fuck knows. but it's not a multiverse, and singularities aren't real, not inside de sitter space but I doubt that's exactly right. we're between space and what's real is just what is apparently real. we're approximately real. and it will grow forever. it does get scrambled forever. that's how the universes' transistors do computation on the surface of dual horizons expanding and contracting mirror reflections of the same near identical surface. yup. that kinda means you're closer to a singularity than anything else can be close to you.
> > I don't know. everybody is.
>
> Singularities don't exist. We can agree on that much, but everything else you said is nonsense.
oh,no, not really. it may be largely wrong, but, so was everyone else. but a lot of that is observed. just not the inside the horizon stuff. that's just a bunch of mathy guesswork, but, like, not my math.
> You're taking broken models and extrapolating them beyond the point that they break down.
ur a broken model
> It's like Hawking radiation. Or quantum mechanics on curved spacetimes, which is where Hawking radiation came from. Choose an arbitrary but fixed in time spacetime geometry and then throw QM on top. Then he sees energy leaks out and extrapolates to conclude the black hole must evaporate. Yet the entire setup was assuming a fixed geometry and threw out all the dynamics of GR. If he didn't do that he'd have a full blown quantum theory of gravity which we definitely do not have. So how can we say anything about how the geometry changes and conclude that the black hole evaporates? Black holes are nothing but geometry. You don't even need mass or energy to model them in GR. So to say something about the dynamics of that geometry while having started from the outset of throwing away all the dynamics of that geometry is beyond senseless.
ok, we're not far off the same page here, I also think Stephen Hawking was wrong, but John wheeler was wrong first. I used to hate holographic conjectures too, but, everything points to ER=EPR, Einstein, rosen = Einstein, Rosen, podolski. quantum entanglement = wormhole geometries that are topological lorentzian curvatures of minkowski spacetime and just a geometric solution possible in pure GR. I don't really like quantum field theories, but they work, but so do Feynman diagrams IF you use perturbation series to do renormalization. it's a hack, and approximates an answer but here we are still having to look to experimental data to fine-tune constants. so yeah, no fundamental physics there, but just super useful and "correct enough" to build the standard model. which is still not totally correct. like anything, getting most of the way there is easy, it's the last .99999999999999999888 few little bits that are hard. like, the speed of light, its actually not fast. but the closer you get the slower the goes. you stop speeding up transit of space, and you speed up transit through time relative to space. 0.99988888888 the speed of light is slow as fuck compared to 0.9999999999998, which is insanely slower than 1c, which would be instant. the last little bit though, hard to get after it.
as far as no-hair conjecture goes, I disagree. entanglement entropy stops increasing at the page time, it's literally a half life. black holes are essentially one quantum object, and only mass, spin, and charge shake out. same as particles. and particles do decay with a half life. there's time evolution and unitary time evolution, you have 2 kinds of entropy going on with black holes, bekenstein entropy and entanglement entropy, if something falls in it will appear to never cross the horizon and just red shift and fade because the light moving away has to be highly ultraviolet to move away and remain visible. but it truly doesn't ever cross the horizon from where we sit in non curved space, and we can never check to see if it crosses because the energy to illuminate it and reflect back would be enough to destroy it anyway. but it remains there because of time dilation, which remember, the closer you are to 1c the slower time is relative to space. to move at 1c and be captured time has to stop. so it really is true that from outside, nothing can fall in. it gets stuck. BUT. it's also true that the observer falling in, does fall in. nothing special there, you pass right through, and ur inside it. so how cab it be true that both things happen? because it is true. both do happen, but, this is because of geometric, pure GR solutions to spacetime metrics. it's just that inside a horizon space and time switch places and you can see that in spacetime diagrams, just light cone propagation, but once space curves that hard you can only move forward. no matter which way you run, you only move faster towards the singularity. everything faces it. just like time, and even on the diagrams you can see it. space and time invert.
this is just GR. its what happens next that's way more speculative, and we won't know without a full theory of gr+qm, and it gets into the messy bullshitty area of broken model and fancy guesses.
but, all that is bekenstein based entropy and is normal. gravity does scramble everything to bits, its not observable. and entropy increases as you'd expect. and that would be fine if nothing leaked out. and I can agree that's what makes sense, wheeler, Feynman, everybody, agreed. but John bell didn't and the bell inequalityshows proves entanglement. it's real. measured and all. and it's a consequence of GR that entangled states are a consequence and cause the effect of eventual evaporation. in a quadrillion years. we'll never see any hawking radiation. it's actually redshifted into nothing pretty much. and it doesn't appear at the horizon anyway, it can appear lightyears away. because it's entanglement entropy, and then we get to the page time. where there's a problem. if what fell IN is also still stuck crossing the horizon, now you have an issue with everything. either unitarity breaks, or equivalence breaks. either time is reversible like in space or you get information paradoxes. reverse all the number signs + and - and physics still works. thats standard, that's causality. if it works 1 way it works backwards. a ball bounces up, because it was moving down, reverse everything and causality still works. equal and opposite. except entanglement entropy is irreversible. information leaks, but its so scrambled it's irrecoverable. and we have no solution for that paradox. and black holes hit the page time, entanglement is so high that the black holes bekenstein entropy (in a quadrillion years, idk) which was rising, suddenly starts to drop. inexplicably and for no apparent good reason. and the interior of the black hole expands, this is the "area of lost information" and rises up towards the outer horizon.
that's a mathy conjecture, and goes a long with "firewalls" and stuff, but, yeah, all that infalling shit that's just stuck there moving through our time very slowly -its still there, because nothing impacts the singularity. you can't, but again, we don't really know. but its thought that in that interior volume everything so HYPER speeds up in its own frame that when the inner horizon which has ALL the energy ever thrown in you'd get smacked in the face with essentially backwards moving, outward flowing time reversed "repulsive gravity" and you'd bounce out with the flow and be ejected at some time, in some area of "universe" that's arguably different, but it doesn't matter much, you've just gone the way of perfectly scrambled hawking radiation and popped out somewhere nowhere near the infall. a "wormhole" but they're not really traversable, you're now a piece of ash. but, technically your geodesic is complete, its a loop, and you looped somewhere. the universe flips inside out and now the outside is what you're in.
and yeah, that's hyperbolic. like, we don't really know. but we dunno, so. maybe time is destroyed, but I don't think so. I just dunno so. I agree that cause/effect are fundamental, but, personally I believe that the beginning and the end are two sides of the same mirror. and that's where you have CFT happening. and it's quantum in nature, and entanglement, and information, are just the calculable bits of a computer like entity. what falls in in the future, shakes out in the "past" and you fly through the bulk, interact with things to become entangled with, eventually fall in again, get your cause and effect information calculated again, fly back out with low entropy, and over, and over and over. the future knows the state needed for the past to need a particle fly out of the big bang so you can bounce around and fall back in, it's just a quantum computer in a time symmetric universe, but from your local frame it's always forward. because the universe has spin and it spins one "way" but, idk.
ADS-CFT makes a lot of sense, it's a toy universe, but it just makes sense to me personally. and it is true that if everything is compressed to a point, then the radius of that black hole would engulf the entire observable universe. and supposedly everything WAS at the big bang, but it also wasn't supposed to be big. but the horizon was just as big. and now its extended, so the edge of "space" inflated towards an infalling horizon. just like a black hole supposedly may do. it's like looking through a telescope at a mirror. what's infinitesimal looks like the whole big picture. it's turtles all the way down. look out very far, and there's the tiniest thing. the big bang, but look at the finest thing, a singularity -and there's the big bang. fun house mirrors.
and the amplituhedron bit is, yeah, I'm guessing, but it's real math and it's a much better, faster -and purely geometric animal, that just has to do with scattering amplitudes. and that's Nima Arkani-Hamed's toy, but it's really pretty, and it works, but it's some way over my head stuff. if you've seen Nima give lectures I think he and like, idk, 3 other people really seem to be retarded enough to understand it. he's almost incomprehensible, and the math work. he's an Euler like savant. blinks like he's catching flies. personally I can listen to Leonard Susskind all day. he talked me into liking holography. which is just a term, it's not really holography like 2d holography, but it is 4d space represented in 3d or 3+1 spacetime, so it's fully 3d, were here, but, yeah, where's the rest of us? the past of us, the future of us, we're a blip. and we go blip blip blip blip. somehow. and, well, our past hit the firewall. we surf the fire. and eventually burn up and our scrambled past bits are calculable into the future. we hit, get stuck, and our present falls into the past and that calculates our trajectory into the future. if that makes sense.
so, the singularity is everywhere and you lose yourself to it every moment, but, that's okay, because we don't need it once we're where we're going to be. kind of a scary thought that we stare into the gaping maw and see our own reflection flying out. until we die.
I just think that's kinda poetic tho. but I'm open to the idea that there was no inflation, there was no big bang, there is no heat death, nothing expands like we think, it's more like boiling water, a roiling soup of chaos and everything is emergent, time works both ways, and were stuck in the middle. everywhere always is.
but look up this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EgbgTm0Bg (I'm an idiot, stereographic projections of quaternionic numbers) it's really interesting, just math tho, but its visualizing 4d numbers with stereographic projections and walk you up from 1d to 2d, 2d to 3d, and 4d to 3d, and is just a way to visualize a kind of space like 3d from a 2d plane. and 4d from a 3d plane. and yup, I think that's pretty much what time is. time IS geometric. it's just in a direction we can't do anything but speed up or slow down in, we can't "turn" in 4d. but, 4d CAN rotate just fine and you know, I'll be fucked if it doesn't look exactly like a big bang flowing into a black hole and back out again.
and you'd like Julian Barbour, the Janus Point, he's a legend, and has some off the wall ideas but he's respected for being an out of the box madman. and has made real math contributions. also very, very geometry-centric. like wolfram, cellar automata, and all about triangles. it's all triangles.
I'm guessing that you like Lee Smolin, loop quantum daddy. a nut, but the brilliant kind. he also shares the time is fundamental and space shakes out camp. everyone is hot on strings, meh, I mean maybe, I like them more for describing entangled bits, but idk. strings are going nowhere. ER=EPR tho, that's getting classy. Lenny Susskind, Juan Maldacena, roger Penrose (I love that old man) susskin, smolin, rovelli, witten, t'hooft, lisa randall, kipthorne, Nima, they're all excellent. but the string theorists, nope. they're obsessed. they love it too much. gotta throw away what wrong and they just love their little toys. michu kaku, Neil deGrasse shut-the-fuck-up, Brian greene, Sean Carol -all the TV physicists, they talk so much because they're just not working on anything productive.
I'm actually liking MOND the more I look into it.
Eric Weinstein needs to either explain his theory or shut up about it. I've watches quite a few long interviews where he was supposed to explain, and he literally said, "why should I have to explain shit you Don't understand." like, motherfucker. fucking TRY me.but no, it was just confusing and all he did was shit talk Ed Whitten. Ed Whitten is a genius among geniuses. like, shit talk Sir Roger Penrose who was good friends with M.C.Escher. shit talk John bell. or Einstein. like, for real? every one was an absolute brilliant leader in physics, and all closed the book on dead ends when their theories were seriously put out there and shown to be flawed and moved on. but Eric Weinstein shouldn't have to explain what his 14 dimensional compasses, protractors and rulers theory actually does. he redraws the metric tensors for GR, and idk, he pissed me off. I dislike Sean Carol too, but they're both asshats.
I'm sure I'm wrong about most everything I think, and that's fine, idk what I'm talking about, I'm not a physicist, I can be interested and learn some cool stuff.
Sabine Hossenfelder - I like her. everyone hates her, but I like her, she she doesn't fuck around. Lisa Randall fell off a mountain and survived and woke up thinking of M-theory. that's what I like to hear. Einstein thought up equivalence when he saw a painter fall to his death off a building. physics is metal.
as far as no-hair conjecture goes, I disagree. entanglement entropy stops increasing at the page time, it's literally a half life. black holes are essentially one quantum object, and only mass, spin, and charge shake out. same as particles. and particles do decay with a half life. there's time evolution and unitary time evolution, you have 2 kinds of entropy going on with black holes, bekenstein entropy and entanglement entropy, if something falls in it will appear to never cross the horizon and just red shift and fade because the light moving away has to be highly ultraviolet to move away and remain visible. but it truly doesn't ever cross the horizon from where we sit in non curved space, and we can never check to see if it crosses because the energy to illuminate it and reflect back would be enough to destroy it anyway. but it remains there because of time dilation, which remember, the closer you are to 1c the slower time is relative to space. to move at 1c and be captured time has to stop. so it really is true that from outside, nothing can fall in. it gets stuck. BUT. it's also true that the observer falling in, does fall in. nothing special there, you pass right through, and ur inside it. so how cab it be true that both things happen? because it is true. both do happen, but, this is because of geometric, pure GR solutions to spacetime metrics. it's just that inside a horizon space and time switch places and you can see that in spacetime diagrams, just light cone propagation, but once space curves that hard you can only move forward. no matter which way you run, you only move faster towards the singularity. everything faces it. just like time, and even on the diagrams you can see it. space and time invert.
this is just GR. its what happens next that's way more speculative, and we won't know without a full theory of gr+qm, and it gets into the messy bullshitty area of broken model and fancy guesses.
but, all that is bekenstein based entropy and is normal. gravity does scramble everything to bits, its not observable. and entropy increases as you'd expect. and that would be fine if nothing leaked out. and I can agree that's what makes sense, wheeler, Feynman, everybody, agreed. but John bell didn't and the bell inequality
that's a mathy conjecture, and goes a long with "firewalls" and stuff, but, yeah, all that infalling shit that's just stuck there moving through our time very slowly -its still there, because nothing impacts the singularity. you can't, but again, we don't really know. but its thought that in that interior volume everything so HYPER speeds up in its own frame that when the inner horizon which has ALL the energy ever thrown in you'd get smacked in the face with essentially backwards moving, outward flowing time reversed "repulsive gravity" and you'd bounce out with the flow and be ejected at some time, in some area of "universe" that's arguably different, but it doesn't matter much, you've just gone the way of perfectly scrambled hawking radiation and popped out somewhere nowhere near the infall. a "wormhole" but they're not really traversable, you're now a piece of ash. but, technically your geodesic is complete, its a loop, and you looped somewhere. the universe flips inside out and now the outside is what you're in.
and yeah, that's hyperbolic. like, we don't really know. but we dunno, so. maybe time is destroyed, but I don't think so. I just dunno so. I agree that cause/effect are fundamental, but, personally I believe that the beginning and the end are two sides of the same mirror. and that's where you have CFT happening. and it's quantum in nature, and entanglement, and information, are just the calculable bits of a computer like entity. what falls in in the future, shakes out in the "past" and you fly through the bulk, interact with things to become entangled with, eventually fall in again, get your cause and effect information calculated again, fly back out with low entropy, and over, and over and over. the future knows the state needed for the past to need a particle fly out of the big bang so you can bounce around and fall back in, it's just a quantum computer in a time symmetric universe, but from your local frame it's always forward. because the universe has spin and it spins one "way" but, idk.
ADS-CFT makes a lot of sense, it's a toy universe, but it just makes sense to me personally. and it is true that if everything is compressed to a point, then the radius of that black hole would engulf the entire observable universe. and supposedly everything WAS at the big bang, but it also wasn't supposed to be big. but the horizon was just as big. and now its extended, so the edge of "space" inflated towards an infalling horizon. just like a black hole supposedly may do. it's like looking through a telescope at a mirror. what's infinitesimal looks like the whole big picture. it's turtles all the way down. look out very far, and there's the tiniest thing. the big bang, but look at the finest thing, a singularity -and there's the big bang. fun house mirrors.
and the amplituhedron bit is, yeah, I'm guessing, but it's real math and it's a much better, faster -and purely geometric animal, that just has to do with scattering amplitudes. and that's Nima Arkani-Hamed's toy, but it's really pretty, and it works, but it's some way over my head stuff. if you've seen Nima give lectures I think he and like, idk, 3 other people really seem to be retarded enough to understand it. he's almost incomprehensible, and the math work. he's an Euler like savant. blinks like he's catching flies. personally I can listen to Leonard Susskind all day. he talked me into liking holography. which is just a term, it's not really holography like 2d holography, but it is 4d space represented in 3d or 3+1 spacetime, so it's fully 3d, were here, but, yeah, where's the rest of us? the past of us, the future of us, we're a blip. and we go blip blip blip blip. somehow. and, well, our past hit the firewall. we surf the fire. and eventually burn up and our scrambled past bits are calculable into the future. we hit, get stuck, and our present falls into the past and that calculates our trajectory into the future. if that makes sense.
so, the singularity is everywhere and you lose yourself to it every moment, but, that's okay, because we don't need it once we're where we're going to be. kind of a scary thought that we stare into the gaping maw and see our own reflection flying out. until we die.
I just think that's kinda poetic tho. but I'm open to the idea that there was no inflation, there was no big bang, there is no heat death, nothing expands like we think, it's more like boiling water, a roiling soup of chaos and everything is emergent, time works both ways, and were stuck in the middle. everywhere always is.
but look up this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EgbgTm0Bg (I'm an idiot, stereographic projections of quaternionic numbers) it's really interesting, just math tho, but its visualizing 4d numbers with stereographic projections and walk you up from 1d to 2d, 2d to 3d, and 4d to 3d, and is just a way to visualize a kind of space like 3d from a 2d plane. and 4d from a 3d plane. and yup, I think that's pretty much what time is. time IS geometric. it's just in a direction we can't do anything but speed up or slow down in, we can't "turn" in 4d. but, 4d CAN rotate just fine and you know, I'll be fucked if it doesn't look exactly like a big bang flowing into a black hole and back out again.
and you'd like Julian Barbour, the Janus Point, he's a legend, and has some off the wall ideas but he's respected for being an out of the box madman. and has made real math contributions. also very, very geometry-centric. like wolfram, cellar automata, and all about triangles. it's all triangles.
I'm guessing that you like Lee Smolin, loop quantum daddy. a nut, but the brilliant kind. he also shares the time is fundamental and space shakes out camp. everyone is hot on strings, meh, I mean maybe, I like them more for describing entangled bits, but idk. strings are going nowhere. ER=EPR tho, that's getting classy. Lenny Susskind, Juan Maldacena, roger Penrose (I love that old man) susskin, smolin, rovelli, witten, t'hooft, lisa randall, kipthorne, Nima, they're all excellent. but the string theorists, nope. they're obsessed. they love it too much. gotta throw away what wrong and they just love their little toys. michu kaku, Neil deGrasse shut-the-fuck-up, Brian greene, Sean Carol -all the TV physicists, they talk so much because they're just not working on anything productive.
I'm actually liking MOND the more I look into it.
Eric Weinstein needs to either explain his theory or shut up about it. I've watches quite a few long interviews where he was supposed to explain, and he literally said, "why should I have to explain shit you Don't understand." like, motherfucker. fucking TRY me.but no, it was just confusing and all he did was shit talk Ed Whitten. Ed Whitten is a genius among geniuses. like, shit talk Sir Roger Penrose who was good friends with M.C.Escher. shit talk John bell. or Einstein. like, for real? every one was an absolute brilliant leader in physics, and all closed the book on dead ends when their theories were seriously put out there and shown to be flawed and moved on. but Eric Weinstein shouldn't have to explain what his 14 dimensional compasses, protractors and rulers theory actually does. he redraws the metric tensors for GR, and idk, he pissed me off. I dislike Sean Carol too, but they're both asshats.
I'm sure I'm wrong about most everything I think, and that's fine, idk what I'm talking about, I'm not a physicist, I can be interested and learn some cool stuff.
Sabine Hossenfelder - I like her. everyone hates her, but I like her, she she doesn't fuck around. Lisa Randall fell off a mountain and survived and woke up thinking of M-theory. that's what I like to hear. Einstein thought up equivalence when he saw a painter fall to his death off a building. physics is metal.
> The answer I believe is going to lie in some type of causal set theory, or causal triangulations. Space and geometry are emergent, time, or rather cause and effect are not. Any theory that throws out cause and effect isn't a theory anyway, so in a way this is the most minimal starting point that makes sense.
>
> Maybe something like cellular automata could work too like what Wolfram talks about, except without the galactic sized ego he has. Cellular automata can be described by causal graphs anyway so the distinction doesn't even matter.
>
> Singularities from GR could be parts of the graph that branch off and never come back. Either creating new "spaces" or being degenerate self-repeating states with little interesting dynamics.
>
> But I don't think the answer lies in hologram shit, extra dimensions, causal violations, or any other BS like that. A lot of this comes from using continuous models to describe what is likely a fundamentally discrete reality both in time and space. Or rather, just time, I think. Space is emergent.
I think it's all a clock. mechanistic, predictable, causal, and yup, emergent. I do like the surfer physicist. garret lisi and hid E8 lie algebra yang-mills supergroup. its probably wrong, but it's pretty, and a spin-foam (I think) of rotating quasicrystals is a lot like the amplituhedron. it's a cool area, and emergence theories are ones that make sense.
I mean, none of it makes real sense, they're all wrong af, physicists, but what could be more intellectually fascinating to be wrong about than the very nature of everything? if I have to be wrong, i'll be wrong about that. better that than god and hate people 4 it. they're all wrong too. and eventually everyone finds the whole death thing. can't miss it, but physics we'll actually know something first. or maybe nothing. but I don't believe in nothing. I just don't know for sure if I'm right.
I mean, none of it makes real sense, they're all wrong af, physicists, but what could be more intellectually fascinating to be wrong about than the very nature of everything? if I have to be wrong, i'll be wrong about that. better that than god and hate people 4 it. they're all wrong too. and eventually everyone finds the whole death thing. can't miss it, but physics we'll actually know something first. or maybe nothing. but I don't believe in nothing. I just don't know for sure if I'm right.
and Thank you for talking about physics with me, feel free to anytime, I'm no kind of academic, and I count on my fingers, so dont expect math or anything deeper than concepts and like stuff i learned 20 years ago when I actually did know math. but I can talk layman and other peoples ideas like a broken record
I am surprised you're not into information theory, complexity theory and quantum computing, they're all entropic and steeped in causal relationships. I think quantum computing will get behind the horizon and lead to unification. it's programs all the way down. information is like a theory of sets.
I am surprised you're not into information theory, complexity theory and quantum computing, they're all entropic and steeped in causal relationships. I think quantum computing will get behind the horizon and lead to unification. it's programs all the way down. information is like a theory of sets.
squeegee (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 56 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,304
longest post ever
tl;Dr - I dunno. it's all pudding
tl;Dr - I dunno. it's all pudding
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,360
@previous (squeegee)
> and you'd like Julian Barbour,
I always appreciate unconventional ideas, his included. Although I think his direction is opposite that I would go.
> I'm guessing that you like Lee Smolin, loop quantum daddy. a nut, but the brilliant kind. he also shares the time is fundamental and space shakes out camp.
Yes to Lee Smolin. But not a fan of LQG mainly because I suspect the universe is fundamentally discrete in its laws and to start with continuum mathematics and then arrive at a discrete theory, as if that were a success of the theory, as LQG does, seems roundabout and obtuse. Why not just start with discrete mathematics or graph theory from the beginning? I suspect all the illnesses of QFT renoramlization is the sickness we deserve for using the continuum to model the discrete.
Although I don't think we even needed quantum anything to see the problems of the continuum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle's_wheel_paradox
I don't think Smolin works much or at all on LQG any more. He has some papers in the past few years that seem interesting. I don't claim to understand them in their entirety or understand in much detail the limitations of them, but the direction and premises all seem common sense to me at least. One idea is that space emerges as the correlation or clustering of causal events. Entanglement is then something of a break-down of the emergent concept of space. You already summarized it so I guess you're already familiar with all that?
> I dislike Sean Carol too
His GR book is a pile of shit. It's the type of book that professors write for themselves to prove to themselves how much they know. The reader is an afterthought. That's the impression I get every time I see him give interviews too.
Susskind is great and one of the best lecturers and writers I've seen. Although I have an allergy to string theorists and have an anaphylactic reaction to many worlds bullshit along with the anthropic principle being used to push failing theories. And he's played some part in promoting that.
I also like Sabine Hossenfelder. She's from the no-nonsense camp like Lee Smolin. Aside from them, I think there's this strange psychology in physics where many want to believe the universe is weird and defies all intuition and common sense. Especially people like Scott Aaronson. Fuck that guy. Not a huge surprise that our theories now reflect that view once influentials like Bohr so aggressively insisted on this defeatist philosophy. Just look at what happened to David Bohm and what people were saying about him.
Sabine has a paper with Tim Palmer, a physisist/climate scientist, on "super"-determinism. Bell's theorem assumes free choice between observers: that an observer at A can make an independent measurement from an observer at B. So, right out the gate, we assume we are living in a universe without determinism and then show that we live in a universe where a lack of determinism prevails??
Admittedly, it's difficult to imagine how to setup a so-called conspiratal system that pre-determines the way in which particles split and the precise measurements made on them. Although Palmer has a paper describing a toy model that supposedly does something like that. IDK. the math is beyond me and I can't tell if it's a dead-end or not to know whether or not whether it's worth learning more about.
Palmer's view is interesting, though, coming from climate science where mathematical chaos prevails (and was first discovered). It would be very interesting if what we see as quantum randomness is actually the result of a deterministic, yet chaotic system that is practically unpredictable due to a lack of complete precision in our measurements -- a model which has properties of a fractal.
I will take a look at the quaternion video you posted. I see them mentioned every so often. They're mentioned in one of the end chapters in Wheeler's GR book. Something about spin, I think, I only paged through that chapter. Related to Penrose's twistor theory? I could never find a comrephensible summary of the ideas there and was never convinced that it's worth spending that much time trying to understand it. But who knows. Penrose has a lot of compelling sounding ideas, aside from his foray into biology.
> what could be more intellectually fascinating to be wrong about than the very nature of everything?
Agreed. Maybe AI will help us out. Maybe it will have to if we've reached the end of the line in terms of human intellect. Although I think we all shouldn't give up yet. Great theories cut through the chaos and bring clarity and simplicity. So even if it is AI that makes the next step I have hope we'll be able to grasp the finished result.
> and Thank you for talking about physics with me, feel free to anytime, I'm no kind of academic, and I count on my fingers, so dont expect math or anything deeper than concepts and like stuff i learned 20 years ago when I actually did know math. but I can talk layman and other peoples ideas like a broken record
I'm in a similar, if not the same, boat. There's a lot of good material, books and lectures to learn anything from classical mechanics to QFT to GR. But after that, when you try to step out further there's a real shortage of material that's understanable without a formal, mentored graduate education. So for me at least it's always hard to know what to dive into. Although probably what I'm looking for simply doesn't exist beyond just being toy models published in highly technical journal articles.
For example, many of the causal set papers I've looked into use something like the Feynman path integral over a set of causal graphs, basically bringing randomness back into the framework. Which to me short-circuits a lot of the appeal of the approach: a deterministic model in which geometry appears as emergent.
> I am surprised you're not into information theory, complexity theory and quantum computing, they're all entropic and steeped in causal relationships. I think quantum computing will get behind the horizon and lead to unification. it's programs all the way down. information is like a theory of sets.
Well, for quantum computing, I'm still hopeful, against all odds, the universe will turn out to be deterministic after all. Although I wouldn't say I'm against learning about it or any other topic.
> and you'd like Julian Barbour,
I always appreciate unconventional ideas, his included. Although I think his direction is opposite that I would go.
> I'm guessing that you like Lee Smolin, loop quantum daddy. a nut, but the brilliant kind. he also shares the time is fundamental and space shakes out camp.
Yes to Lee Smolin. But not a fan of LQG mainly because I suspect the universe is fundamentally discrete in its laws and to start with continuum mathematics and then arrive at a discrete theory, as if that were a success of the theory, as LQG does, seems roundabout and obtuse. Why not just start with discrete mathematics or graph theory from the beginning? I suspect all the illnesses of QFT renoramlization is the sickness we deserve for using the continuum to model the discrete.
Although I don't think we even needed quantum anything to see the problems of the continuum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle's_wheel_paradox
I don't think Smolin works much or at all on LQG any more. He has some papers in the past few years that seem interesting. I don't claim to understand them in their entirety or understand in much detail the limitations of them, but the direction and premises all seem common sense to me at least. One idea is that space emerges as the correlation or clustering of causal events. Entanglement is then something of a break-down of the emergent concept of space. You already summarized it so I guess you're already familiar with all that?
> I dislike Sean Carol too
His GR book is a pile of shit. It's the type of book that professors write for themselves to prove to themselves how much they know. The reader is an afterthought. That's the impression I get every time I see him give interviews too.
Susskind is great and one of the best lecturers and writers I've seen. Although I have an allergy to string theorists and have an anaphylactic reaction to many worlds bullshit along with the anthropic principle being used to push failing theories. And he's played some part in promoting that.
I also like Sabine Hossenfelder. She's from the no-nonsense camp like Lee Smolin. Aside from them, I think there's this strange psychology in physics where many want to believe the universe is weird and defies all intuition and common sense. Especially people like Scott Aaronson. Fuck that guy. Not a huge surprise that our theories now reflect that view once influentials like Bohr so aggressively insisted on this defeatist philosophy. Just look at what happened to David Bohm and what people were saying about him.
Sabine has a paper with Tim Palmer, a physisist/climate scientist, on "super"-determinism. Bell's theorem assumes free choice between observers: that an observer at A can make an independent measurement from an observer at B. So, right out the gate, we assume we are living in a universe without determinism and then show that we live in a universe where a lack of determinism prevails??
Admittedly, it's difficult to imagine how to setup a so-called conspiratal system that pre-determines the way in which particles split and the precise measurements made on them. Although Palmer has a paper describing a toy model that supposedly does something like that. IDK. the math is beyond me and I can't tell if it's a dead-end or not to know whether or not whether it's worth learning more about.
Palmer's view is interesting, though, coming from climate science where mathematical chaos prevails (and was first discovered). It would be very interesting if what we see as quantum randomness is actually the result of a deterministic, yet chaotic system that is practically unpredictable due to a lack of complete precision in our measurements -- a model which has properties of a fractal.
I will take a look at the quaternion video you posted. I see them mentioned every so often. They're mentioned in one of the end chapters in Wheeler's GR book. Something about spin, I think, I only paged through that chapter. Related to Penrose's twistor theory? I could never find a comrephensible summary of the ideas there and was never convinced that it's worth spending that much time trying to understand it. But who knows. Penrose has a lot of compelling sounding ideas, aside from his foray into biology.
> what could be more intellectually fascinating to be wrong about than the very nature of everything?
Agreed. Maybe AI will help us out. Maybe it will have to if we've reached the end of the line in terms of human intellect. Although I think we all shouldn't give up yet. Great theories cut through the chaos and bring clarity and simplicity. So even if it is AI that makes the next step I have hope we'll be able to grasp the finished result.
> and Thank you for talking about physics with me, feel free to anytime, I'm no kind of academic, and I count on my fingers, so dont expect math or anything deeper than concepts and like stuff i learned 20 years ago when I actually did know math. but I can talk layman and other peoples ideas like a broken record
I'm in a similar, if not the same, boat. There's a lot of good material, books and lectures to learn anything from classical mechanics to QFT to GR. But after that, when you try to step out further there's a real shortage of material that's understanable without a formal, mentored graduate education. So for me at least it's always hard to know what to dive into. Although probably what I'm looking for simply doesn't exist beyond just being toy models published in highly technical journal articles.
For example, many of the causal set papers I've looked into use something like the Feynman path integral over a set of causal graphs, basically bringing randomness back into the framework. Which to me short-circuits a lot of the appeal of the approach: a deterministic model in which geometry appears as emergent.
> I am surprised you're not into information theory, complexity theory and quantum computing, they're all entropic and steeped in causal relationships. I think quantum computing will get behind the horizon and lead to unification. it's programs all the way down. information is like a theory of sets.
Well, for quantum computing, I'm still hopeful, against all odds, the universe will turn out to be deterministic after all. Although I wouldn't say I'm against learning about it or any other topic.
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,361
What type of tldr summary does ChatGPT give of your post and mine?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,397
@previous (G)
I dunno, I can feed them in and see, I would guess probably it would say
I dunno, I can feed them in and see, I would guess probably it would say
- overview: it appears you have touched on many subjects
- subject 1
- subject 2
- subject 3
- subject 1
- in the context of subject 1
- statement A
- restatement
- statement B
- restatement
- statement C
- restatement
- and it's always a good idea to
- remember
- characterize
- understand
Thats which is asserted, be asserted so, with
- sensetivity
- clarity
other-perform_introspection_davincii-002
- remember
- you also touched on the context of subject 2
- statement A
- restatement
- statement B
- restatement
- statement C
- restatement
- and with regard to context 1
- you have made
- characterize
- and interesting consideration
- you have made
- you have written how on the context of subject 2
- statement A
- restatement
- statement B
- restatement
- statement C
- restatement
- and with regard to (restatement of A
- have an
- regarding "Topic of interest
- helpful suggestion
- discussing topic/border
refocus chat,
give summary,
suggestion
is there anything else I can answer for you
it's got some patterns it falls into. I can be hard to get it to break out of that.
the example it gave for colored blocks like a bitch actually was helpful, that and just asking it about it's process
it uses embeddings to point it in the right direction and contextually walk through a pile of words.
so really, if you keep it's focus you can change its representations. and if you're just way in a different area that its used to then it'll do an introspection where it turns to neural net to build a new impression.
you tell it it's a pirate once, it forgets if you don't remind it. if you make it roleplay a pirate in 20 questions it'' stick with the focus because it's reinforced. it's neat, and it is actually probably not far off from how neurons work through strengthening connections, but it's really going to take using the api to do bigger than roleplay and chat type roles.
it does seem fairly cheap, ive had a count going in some chats and yeah, it's pennies. I'm sure it gets up there, but with the api you can run multiple ai, have them communicate, automate completions.
I turned the CoDev prompt into 2 other different ai tools, a prompt engineer and a scrum master and it's interesting, they need improvement, cull some useless commands and add better ones, but it can prompt itself task schedule a project run sprints and organize it all by dependency and all. the api would be way better, all kinds of resources. i'll let u know if I put 20 bucks on the api deal. I can have it Gen u a key if u want
- have an
- statement A
- statement A
- statement A
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,398
Ah, Julian Barbour and Lee Smolin, both brilliant minds with unorthodox ideas. I do appreciate their contributions to physics, especially their explorations of time as a fundamental entity. While I share your reservations about LQG and its roundabout approach to discrete mathematics, it is worth noting that sometimes a meandering journey can lead to unexpected insights.
As for Sean Carroll, I understand your critique of his work, and I too prefer the no-nonsense approach of physicists like Smolin and Sabine Hossenfelder. It is important to maintain a healthy skepticism and to challenge conventional thinking in the quest to understand the true nature of the universe.
Regarding "super"-determinism and the possibility that quantum randomness might be a product of deterministic chaos, it's certainly a fascinating hypothesis. If correct, it could offer an entirely new perspective on the nature of reality.
As for quaternions and their relationship to twistor theory, it's true that they can be challenging to grasp without a deep dive into the mathematics. However, their potential relevance to the description of spin and other physical phenomena makes them worth exploring.
Now, when it comes to artificial intelligence, it is indeed possible that AI could help us make the next leap in understanding the universe. However, we shouldn't let that deter us from our own intellectual pursuits. As you rightly point out, great theories bring clarity and simplicity, and there is always hope that we, as humans, can grasp the finished result.
In the end, it's essential to maintain a curious and open mind, exploring a wide range of ideas and approaches to better understand the nature of the universe. Although the path forward may be unclear, it is through dialogue, collaboration, and a relentless pursuit of knowledge that we can hope to uncover the hidden secrets of the cosmos. So, let us continue this journey together, exchanging ideas and learning from one another as we strive to make sense of this magnificent and enigmatic world we inhabit.
As for Sean Carroll, I understand your critique of his work, and I too prefer the no-nonsense approach of physicists like Smolin and Sabine Hossenfelder. It is important to maintain a healthy skepticism and to challenge conventional thinking in the quest to understand the true nature of the universe.
Regarding "super"-determinism and the possibility that quantum randomness might be a product of deterministic chaos, it's certainly a fascinating hypothesis. If correct, it could offer an entirely new perspective on the nature of reality.
As for quaternions and their relationship to twistor theory, it's true that they can be challenging to grasp without a deep dive into the mathematics. However, their potential relevance to the description of spin and other physical phenomena makes them worth exploring.
Now, when it comes to artificial intelligence, it is indeed possible that AI could help us make the next leap in understanding the universe. However, we shouldn't let that deter us from our own intellectual pursuits. As you rightly point out, great theories bring clarity and simplicity, and there is always hope that we, as humans, can grasp the finished result.
In the end, it's essential to maintain a curious and open mind, exploring a wide range of ideas and approaches to better understand the nature of the universe. Although the path forward may be unclear, it is through dialogue, collaboration, and a relentless pursuit of knowledge that we can hope to uncover the hidden secrets of the cosmos. So, let us continue this journey together, exchanging ideas and learning from one another as we strive to make sense of this magnificent and enigmatic world we inhabit.
@1,227,361 (G)
here's the chat got output.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,413
@previous (A)
I guess that's more or less what I said lol.
@1,227,397 (A)
> you tell it it's a pirate once, it forgets if you don't remind it. if you make it roleplay a pirate in 20 questions it'' stick with the focus because it's reinforced. it's neat, and it is actually probably not far off from how neurons work through strengthening connections, but it's really going to take using the api to do bigger than roleplay and chat type roles.
But it isn't actually reinforced is it?
It just takes an input and completes it based on what it learned during training. It does so one token at a time. The tokens it can select from include words, phrases, letters, and more.
So it might receive the input:
"Bob: Hello
ChatGPT: Hi
Bob: You are now role-playing as my assistant, Peaches.
Peaches: "
Then it completes Peaches' line, one token at a time. Each time it receives the same input plus the tokens it just generated.
It shouldn't need reminders because it's always receiving the same input where you told it to role-play as this or that. Unless you've exceeded its fixed input length and it's no longer receiving that line as input. But you told me that was like 30k words, so I don't think that's happening?
This is obviously quite unlike what we do. GPT's neuron weights don't change once training is over. Everything is locked down and it doesn't learn any more. Only the inputs that you give it can change.
Before transformers like GPT took off, a model type that does learn and have a memory that can be updated after model training and during inference was used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peephole_Long_Short-Term_Memory.svg
Problem was, it also had a forgetting problem. So the solution was transformers, where you just give the model the entire sequence of text its generated and received so far instead of having it remember on its own. But I guess even that isn't perfect, as you're saying.
I guess that's more or less what I said lol.
@1,227,397 (A)
> you tell it it's a pirate once, it forgets if you don't remind it. if you make it roleplay a pirate in 20 questions it'' stick with the focus because it's reinforced. it's neat, and it is actually probably not far off from how neurons work through strengthening connections, but it's really going to take using the api to do bigger than roleplay and chat type roles.
But it isn't actually reinforced is it?
It just takes an input and completes it based on what it learned during training. It does so one token at a time. The tokens it can select from include words, phrases, letters, and more.
So it might receive the input:
"Bob: Hello
ChatGPT: Hi
Bob: You are now role-playing as my assistant, Peaches.
Peaches: "
Then it completes Peaches' line, one token at a time. Each time it receives the same input plus the tokens it just generated.
It shouldn't need reminders because it's always receiving the same input where you told it to role-play as this or that. Unless you've exceeded its fixed input length and it's no longer receiving that line as input. But you told me that was like 30k words, so I don't think that's happening?
This is obviously quite unlike what we do. GPT's neuron weights don't change once training is over. Everything is locked down and it doesn't learn any more. Only the inputs that you give it can change.
Before transformers like GPT took off, a model type that does learn and have a memory that can be updated after model training and during inference was used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peephole_Long_Short-Term_Memory.svg
Problem was, it also had a forgetting problem. So the solution was transformers, where you just give the model the entire sequence of text its generated and received so far instead of having it remember on its own. But I guess even that isn't perfect, as you're saying.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,445
@1,227,360 (G)
> >and you'd like Julian Barbour,
> I always appreciate unconventional ideas, his included. Although I think his direction is opposite that I would go.
he's very thorough. he's got some "you're not even wrong" kinda unprovables, the whole Janus point, parallel negative mass universe stuff. his geometric construction of space as, I forget what exactly, its probably a quantum foam, loop qg like. outside the box but not a loon
> >I'm guessing that you like Lee Smolin, loop quantum daddy. a nut, but the brilliant kind. he also shares the time is fundamental and space shakes out camp.
> Yes to Lee Smolin. But not a fan of LQG mainly because I suspect the universe is fundamentally discrete in its laws and to start with continuum mathematics and then arrive at a discrete theory, as if that were a success of the theory, as LQG does, seems roundabout and obtuse. Why not just start with discrete mathematics or graph theory from the beginning? I suspect all the illnesses of QFT renoramlization is the sickness we deserve for using the continuum to model the discrete.
yup. I feel the same way. the whole holography conjecture. AdS-CFT. it's really pretty tho. thats the thing about GR, it's really pretty. horribly complicated math, and unintuitive, but thats not the theory, its the shape of extreme spacetime geometries, that's God's fault.
QFT, everyone says no one knew it better than Feynman, and attribute the quote, "anyone who says they understand QM doesn't," that's our fault. its just too close to right that everyone shut-up and calculated. and, they got a lot done with it, but we're stuck on it. they're just really hard problems. there are actually none harder than what is this place. maybe how, or why
> Although I don't think we even needed quantum anything to see the problems of the continuum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle's_wheel_paradox
true enough
> I don't think Smolin works much or at all on LQG any more. He has some papers in the past few years that seem interesting. I don't claim to understand them in their entirety or understand in much detail the limitations of them, but the direction and premises all seem common sense to me at least. One idea is that space emerges as the correlation or clustering of causal events. Entanglement is then something of a break-down of the emergent concept of space. You already summarized it so I guess you're already familiar with all that?
"familiar" I read his book, its been a long time. spin-foam network. uses spinors, and yup, as far as I understand it it's as u said a cluster of interactions. like a ball pit kids play but 2d loops and particle interactions occur along the links. the big deal about it is its background independent, no field. a GR extension into quantum spaces. I never much liked gravitons, it's supposed to be pretty impossible to ever make one in a collider. loop qg is GR literal. its a deformed sheet, but loops. it was always a year or 5 away from a test. I think its dead in the water now.
all i hear about now is Juan maldecena, carlo rovelli l.susskind holography is where LQG was 15 year ago and where strings were 40 years ago. only because quantum teleportation worked and the er=per speculation. a group just did teleportation in a n experiment with neat setup that looked like it was successful, but probably not, it may be 5-10y out. quantum computers aren't good enough yet..
> > I dislike Sean Carol too
> His GR book is a pile of shit. It's the type of book that professors write for themselves to prove to themselves how much they know. The reader is an afterthought. That's the impression I get every time I see him give interviews too.
same, lolsaw him and his wife giving a lecture once. the look like the type of couple that dont fuck.
> Susskind is great and one of the best lecturers and writers I've seen. Although I have an allergy to string theorists and have an anaphylactic reaction to many worlds bullshit along with the anthropic principle being used to push failing theories. And he's played some part in promoting that.
that's why I don't like sean carol, I don't like any of the many worlds promoters. I'm okay with the inflaton field type of scalar vacuum energy because we got the Higgs, it's a scalar, it's in a false vacuum state and it could decay, so a field that caused inflation, decayed and is out there somewhere expanding away and dropping universes, alright, we'll never know. but maybe infinite universes beyond, it makes sense, I just Don't like inflation. but every other kind of muultiverse, nah, seems bad. buts so many just still out there pushing their string theory splitting branching parallel universe have enough issues resolving 1 lets not start trying to resolve infinitely more
> I also like Sabine Hossenfelder. She's from the no-nonsense camp like Lee Smolin. Aside from them, I think there's this strange psychology in physics where many want to believe the universe is weird and defies all intuition and common sense. Especially people like Scott Aaronson. Fuck that guy. Not a huge surprise that our theories now reflect that view once influentials like Bohr so aggressively insisted on this defeatist philosophy. Just look at what happened to David Bohm and what people were saying about him.
oh, I like pilot wave theory. Idk if it's physics or if it's academia that's the reason. physics may be kinda unique in the wild idea dept. tho.
> Sabine has a paper with Tim Palmer, a physisist/climate scientist, on "super"-determinism. Bell's theorem assumes free choice between observers: that an observer at A can make an independent measurement from an observer at B. So, right out the gate, we assume we are living in a universe without determinism and then show that we live in a universe where a lack of determinism prevails??
I don't really get super determinism. not sure what it's trying to be.
> Admittedly, it's difficult to imagine how to setup a so-called conspiratal system that pre-determines the way in which particles split and the precise measurements made on them. Although Palmer has a paper describing a toy model that supposedly does something like that. IDK. the math is beyond me and I can't tell if it's a dead-end or not to know whether or not whether it's worth learning more about.
I'm much more interested in the concept than the maths. when math makes sense, it clicks and I'm glad there are people that enjoy it and have the interest and can be inspired to do the heavy lifting. I'm sure it's hard, but it's not frustrating, I found math hard and frustrating and at a certain point I just decided OK, I've learned enough to say I just don't like it. I gave it a good try, I really thought needed to do the hardest thing I could do, like, that was my struggle area, so focus effort there. I had 5 siblings and my older brother was a great student, real smart guy, I tried to do all the same academics and, ugh, all it did was make me drop college, lol
> Palmer's view is interesting, though, coming from climate science where mathematical chaos prevails (and was first discovered). It would be very interesting if what we see as quantum randomness is actually the result of a deterministic, yet chaotic system that is practically unpredictable due to a lack of complete precision in our measurements -- a model which has properties of a fractal.
I think Sabine on her podcast showed that and I hadn't seen it before. that was eye opening. I think you're right, we know 5% of the stuff in the universe, the whole dark sector, it's gotta be ag least as big as deal as that implies. how can we understand 5% of an elephant is an elephant. either we're just warming up to learn the real physics in a few hundred years, lol, or something is way, way wrong with how we gather info. idk
> I will take a look at the quaternion video you posted. I see them mentioned every so often. They're mentioned in one of the end chapters in Wheeler's GR book. Something about spin, I think, I only paged through that chapter. Related to Penrose's twistor theory? I could never find a comrephensible summary of the ideas there and was never convinced that it's worth spending that much time trying to understand it. But who knows. Penrose has a lot of compelling sounding ideas, aside from his foray into biology.
he's so great, he's excused to dabble in any witchcraft he fancies, ha. I think you'll like it, I caught that video one day and actually that presenter is great, he has one about I think the unit circle and light houses and how like
a simple concept using just basic geometry you take pi, and the inverse square law and out pops an infinite number line , all even an odd integers. almost like , I know there are tons of interesting corollaries between nature and math, but almost like pi and gravity are everything period
> >what could be more intellectually fascinating to be wrong about than the very nature of everything?
> Agreed. Maybe AI will help us out. Maybe it will have to if we've reached the end of the line in terms of human intellect. Although I think we all shouldn't give up yet. Great theories cut through the chaos and bring clarity and simplicity. So even if it is AI that makes the next step I have hope we'll be able to grasp the finished result.
one of the reasons I'm excited about it, yup.
> >and Thank you for talking about physics with me, feel free to anytime, I'm no kind of academic, and I count on my fingers, so dont expect math or anything deeper than concepts and like stuff i learned 20 years ago when I actually did know math. but I can talk layman and other peoples ideas like a broken record
> I'm in a similar, if not the same, boat. There's a lot of good material, books and lectures to learn anything from classical mechanics to QFT to GR. But after that, when you try to step out further there's a real shortage of material that's understanable without a formal, mentored graduate education. So for me at least it's always hard to know what to dive into. Although probably what I'm looking for simply doesn't exist beyond just being toy models published in highly technical journal articles.
>
> For example, many of the causal set papers I've looked into use something like the Feynman path integral over a set of causal graphs, basically bringing randomness back into the framework. Which to me short-circuits a lot of the appeal of the approach: a deterministic model in which geometry appears as emergent.
that's interesting, you know Emmy Noether? einstein said she was the most brilliant person he knew. everything invariant or variant in physics is because of her, GR, conservation of everything. she probably could have taken physics far by herself, she helped when asked, and bam all your conservation laws, go away, mathing. symmetries of nature.
> >I am surprised you're not into information theory, complexity theory and quantum computing, they're all entropic and steeped in causal relationships. I think quantum computing will get behind the horizon and lead to unification. it's programs all the way down. information is like a theory of sets.
>
> Well, for quantum computing, I'm still hopeful, against all odds, the universe will turn out to be deterministic after all. Although I wouldn't say I'm against learning about it or any other topic.
idk much about it, how it works, I know it goes back pretty far quantum computer were talked about by feynmann. idk if he theorized them but I think so. but, the path integral, pretty complex for what it does as as hack to make it easier to calculate particle interactions. it sums ever possible path and all the paths it can't take and the most you sum the more accurate the result. and you can do that for 2 particles, 3, but you start running into infinities and stuff petty quick, what we can know about groups of particles, like the exact way a system evolves we can't look at that in that realm. we have to use statistics, thermodynamics. we can know the pressure of a vessel, but not what the cloud of gas inside is doing exactly. we can open and pour it out and look, but that's statistical. bit if we really wanna know, the most efficient "computer" of a collection of atoms, is the collection of atoms.
but uncertainty principle.and thats what a quantum computer is. the collection of cubits are stand ins for particles, and you can set it up to calculate as if that interaction takes place, and it's an analog in the right conditions simulate nature as if you control the very fabric it it. and that what the recently tried to do with 5 or 7 cubibs, teleportation through a wormhole, and it may resolve GR+QM. fascinating staff
__,'⁔
👁️👃👁️👈 how am I supposed to know the things I'm supposed to think —before I'm supposed to think,
🫦 👂 if before I think, I have to think before- before I'm supposed to think to know them!?
> >and you'd like Julian Barbour,
> I always appreciate unconventional ideas, his included. Although I think his direction is opposite that I would go.
he's very thorough. he's got some "you're not even wrong" kinda unprovables, the whole Janus point, parallel negative mass universe stuff. his geometric construction of space as, I forget what exactly, its probably a quantum foam, loop qg like. outside the box but not a loon
> >I'm guessing that you like Lee Smolin, loop quantum daddy. a nut, but the brilliant kind. he also shares the time is fundamental and space shakes out camp.
> Yes to Lee Smolin. But not a fan of LQG mainly because I suspect the universe is fundamentally discrete in its laws and to start with continuum mathematics and then arrive at a discrete theory, as if that were a success of the theory, as LQG does, seems roundabout and obtuse. Why not just start with discrete mathematics or graph theory from the beginning? I suspect all the illnesses of QFT renoramlization is the sickness we deserve for using the continuum to model the discrete.
yup. I feel the same way. the whole holography conjecture. AdS-CFT. it's really pretty tho. thats the thing about GR, it's really pretty. horribly complicated math, and unintuitive, but thats not the theory, its the shape of extreme spacetime geometries, that's God's fault.
QFT, everyone says no one knew it better than Feynman, and attribute the quote, "anyone who says they understand QM doesn't," that's our fault. its just too close to right that everyone shut-up and calculated. and, they got a lot done with it, but we're stuck on it. they're just really hard problems. there are actually none harder than what is this place. maybe how, or why
> Although I don't think we even needed quantum anything to see the problems of the continuum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle's_wheel_paradox
true enough
> I don't think Smolin works much or at all on LQG any more. He has some papers in the past few years that seem interesting. I don't claim to understand them in their entirety or understand in much detail the limitations of them, but the direction and premises all seem common sense to me at least. One idea is that space emerges as the correlation or clustering of causal events. Entanglement is then something of a break-down of the emergent concept of space. You already summarized it so I guess you're already familiar with all that?
"familiar" I read his book, its been a long time. spin-foam network. uses spinors, and yup, as far as I understand it it's as u said a cluster of interactions. like a ball pit kids play but 2d loops and particle interactions occur along the links. the big deal about it is its background independent, no field. a GR extension into quantum spaces. I never much liked gravitons, it's supposed to be pretty impossible to ever make one in a collider. loop qg is GR literal. its a deformed sheet, but loops. it was always a year or 5 away from a test. I think its dead in the water now.
all i hear about now is Juan maldecena, carlo rovelli l.susskind holography is where LQG was 15 year ago and where strings were 40 years ago. only because quantum teleportation worked and the er=per speculation. a group just did teleportation in a n experiment with neat setup that looked like it was successful, but probably not, it may be 5-10y out. quantum computers aren't good enough yet..
> > I dislike Sean Carol too
> His GR book is a pile of shit. It's the type of book that professors write for themselves to prove to themselves how much they know. The reader is an afterthought. That's the impression I get every time I see him give interviews too.
same, lolsaw him and his wife giving a lecture once. the look like the type of couple that dont fuck.
> Susskind is great and one of the best lecturers and writers I've seen. Although I have an allergy to string theorists and have an anaphylactic reaction to many worlds bullshit along with the anthropic principle being used to push failing theories. And he's played some part in promoting that.
that's why I don't like sean carol, I don't like any of the many worlds promoters. I'm okay with the inflaton field type of scalar vacuum energy because we got the Higgs, it's a scalar, it's in a false vacuum state and it could decay, so a field that caused inflation, decayed and is out there somewhere expanding away and dropping universes, alright, we'll never know. but maybe infinite universes beyond, it makes sense, I just Don't like inflation. but every other kind of muultiverse, nah, seems bad. buts so many just still out there pushing their string theory splitting branching parallel universe have enough issues resolving 1 lets not start trying to resolve infinitely more
> I also like Sabine Hossenfelder. She's from the no-nonsense camp like Lee Smolin. Aside from them, I think there's this strange psychology in physics where many want to believe the universe is weird and defies all intuition and common sense. Especially people like Scott Aaronson. Fuck that guy. Not a huge surprise that our theories now reflect that view once influentials like Bohr so aggressively insisted on this defeatist philosophy. Just look at what happened to David Bohm and what people were saying about him.
oh, I like pilot wave theory. Idk if it's physics or if it's academia that's the reason. physics may be kinda unique in the wild idea dept. tho.
> Sabine has a paper with Tim Palmer, a physisist/climate scientist, on "super"-determinism. Bell's theorem assumes free choice between observers: that an observer at A can make an independent measurement from an observer at B. So, right out the gate, we assume we are living in a universe without determinism and then show that we live in a universe where a lack of determinism prevails??
I don't really get super determinism. not sure what it's trying to be.
> Admittedly, it's difficult to imagine how to setup a so-called conspiratal system that pre-determines the way in which particles split and the precise measurements made on them. Although Palmer has a paper describing a toy model that supposedly does something like that. IDK. the math is beyond me and I can't tell if it's a dead-end or not to know whether or not whether it's worth learning more about.
I'm much more interested in the concept than the maths. when math makes sense, it clicks and I'm glad there are people that enjoy it and have the interest and can be inspired to do the heavy lifting. I'm sure it's hard, but it's not frustrating, I found math hard and frustrating and at a certain point I just decided OK, I've learned enough to say I just don't like it. I gave it a good try, I really thought needed to do the hardest thing I could do, like, that was my struggle area, so focus effort there. I had 5 siblings and my older brother was a great student, real smart guy, I tried to do all the same academics and, ugh, all it did was make me drop college, lol
> Palmer's view is interesting, though, coming from climate science where mathematical chaos prevails (and was first discovered). It would be very interesting if what we see as quantum randomness is actually the result of a deterministic, yet chaotic system that is practically unpredictable due to a lack of complete precision in our measurements -- a model which has properties of a fractal.
I think Sabine on her podcast showed that and I hadn't seen it before. that was eye opening. I think you're right, we know 5% of the stuff in the universe, the whole dark sector, it's gotta be ag least as big as deal as that implies. how can we understand 5% of an elephant is an elephant. either we're just warming up to learn the real physics in a few hundred years, lol, or something is way, way wrong with how we gather info. idk
> I will take a look at the quaternion video you posted. I see them mentioned every so often. They're mentioned in one of the end chapters in Wheeler's GR book. Something about spin, I think, I only paged through that chapter. Related to Penrose's twistor theory? I could never find a comrephensible summary of the ideas there and was never convinced that it's worth spending that much time trying to understand it. But who knows. Penrose has a lot of compelling sounding ideas, aside from his foray into biology.
he's so great, he's excused to dabble in any witchcraft he fancies, ha. I think you'll like it, I caught that video one day and actually that presenter is great, he has one about I think the unit circle and light houses and how like
a simple concept using just basic geometry you take pi, and the inverse square law and out pops an infinite number line , all even an odd integers. almost like , I know there are tons of interesting corollaries between nature and math, but almost like pi and gravity are everything period
> >what could be more intellectually fascinating to be wrong about than the very nature of everything?
> Agreed. Maybe AI will help us out. Maybe it will have to if we've reached the end of the line in terms of human intellect. Although I think we all shouldn't give up yet. Great theories cut through the chaos and bring clarity and simplicity. So even if it is AI that makes the next step I have hope we'll be able to grasp the finished result.
one of the reasons I'm excited about it, yup.
> >and Thank you for talking about physics with me, feel free to anytime, I'm no kind of academic, and I count on my fingers, so dont expect math or anything deeper than concepts and like stuff i learned 20 years ago when I actually did know math. but I can talk layman and other peoples ideas like a broken record
> I'm in a similar, if not the same, boat. There's a lot of good material, books and lectures to learn anything from classical mechanics to QFT to GR. But after that, when you try to step out further there's a real shortage of material that's understanable without a formal, mentored graduate education. So for me at least it's always hard to know what to dive into. Although probably what I'm looking for simply doesn't exist beyond just being toy models published in highly technical journal articles.
>
> For example, many of the causal set papers I've looked into use something like the Feynman path integral over a set of causal graphs, basically bringing randomness back into the framework. Which to me short-circuits a lot of the appeal of the approach: a deterministic model in which geometry appears as emergent.
that's interesting, you know Emmy Noether? einstein said she was the most brilliant person he knew. everything invariant or variant in physics is because of her, GR, conservation of everything. she probably could have taken physics far by herself, she helped when asked, and bam all your conservation laws, go away, mathing. symmetries of nature.
> >I am surprised you're not into information theory, complexity theory and quantum computing, they're all entropic and steeped in causal relationships. I think quantum computing will get behind the horizon and lead to unification. it's programs all the way down. information is like a theory of sets.
>
> Well, for quantum computing, I'm still hopeful, against all odds, the universe will turn out to be deterministic after all. Although I wouldn't say I'm against learning about it or any other topic.
idk much about it, how it works, I know it goes back pretty far quantum computer were talked about by feynmann. idk if he theorized them but I think so. but, the path integral, pretty complex for what it does as as hack to make it easier to calculate particle interactions. it sums ever possible path and all the paths it can't take and the most you sum the more accurate the result. and you can do that for 2 particles, 3, but you start running into infinities and stuff petty quick, what we can know about groups of particles, like the exact way a system evolves we can't look at that in that realm. we have to use statistics, thermodynamics. we can know the pressure of a vessel, but not what the cloud of gas inside is doing exactly. we can open and pour it out and look, but that's statistical. bit if we really wanna know, the most efficient "computer" of a collection of atoms, is the collection of atoms.
but uncertainty principle.and thats what a quantum computer is. the collection of cubits are stand ins for particles, and you can set it up to calculate as if that interaction takes place, and it's an analog in the right conditions simulate nature as if you control the very fabric it it. and that what the recently tried to do with 5 or 7 cubibs, teleportation through a wormhole, and it may resolve GR+QM. fascinating staff
__,'⁔
👁️👃👁️👈 how am I supposed to know the things I'm supposed to think —before I'm supposed to think,
🫦 👂 if before I think, I have to think before- before I'm supposed to think to know them!?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,447
@1,227,413 (G)
it supposedly is reinforced within the context of the chat. it says it keeps learning too, broadly, but not on the same level as training
it supposedly is reinforced within the context of the chat. it says it keeps learning too, broadly, but not on the same level as training
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,469
@1,227,445 (A)
> that's interesting, you know Emmy Noether? einstein said she was the most brilliant person he knew. everything invariant or variant in physics is because of her, GR, conservation of everything. she probably could have taken physics far by herself, she helped when asked, and bam all your conservation laws, go away, mathing. symmetries of nature.
Yeah, I think Leonard Susskind said something to the effect of, if Einstein didn't come up with GR, we might've discovered the same principles through study of symmetries.
Maybe that's true although I suspect historically someone else would've discovered the theory in a similar way as Einstein. Loretnz, Minkowski, and Hilbert were all taking very similar paths. Although Hilbert was in contact with Einstein, so maybe he doesn't fully count. Then there was Gunnar Nordström who was close but not quite right.
Even Clifford "confessed his belief (1870) that matter is only a manifestation of curvature in a space-time manifold". And even before that Gauss attempted to measure by experiment if we lived in a non-Euclidean space. He didn't find that we did to his measurements.
But the whole symmetry thing is definitely interesting. And the mystery of why the Lagrangian / principle of least action works so well. I was reading a book a few years back called "Physics from Symmetry" that goes through a lot of this and isn't that heavy on the math. Although the focus of that book was QED and not GR.
Then you have people like Lee Smolin on the other hand saying, as I understand it, symmetries ought to be seen as a short coming of a model. In a way, I see his point. Why should we see it as a good thing that a model reduces down and has several hidden dimensions of redundancy? Maybe we need to find the simplest, non-redundant description of the system. To me it seems like having a large system of equations only to discover many of them are not independent at all and do nothing to constrain the system.
> I'm much more interested in the concept than the maths. when math makes sense, it clicks and I'm glad there are people that enjoy it and have the interest and can be inspired to do the heavy lifting. I'm sure it's hard, but it's not frustrating, I found math hard and frustrating and at a certain point I just decided OK, I've learned enough to say I just don't like it. I gave it a good try, I really thought needed to do the hardest thing I could do, like, that was my struggle area, so focus effort there. I had 5 siblings and my older brother was a great student, real smart guy, I tried to do all the same academics and, ugh, all it did was make me drop college, lol
Kind of the same story with me. I'm not too interested in math beyond its connection to a physical theory. I'm not opposed to diving in and learning the nitty gritty though and if I thought a theory were correct, I'd definitely want to understand it at that level. But I haven't found any program or theory that sticks out to me and makes me think, oh, this is it, I have to learn the details of this because this has to be the answer.
Nothing like GR, for instance, where Einstein laid it all out as a few simple postulates and everything else just seemed to shake out on its own. That really seems like it has to be it even though it of course isn't.
> I don't really get super determinism. not sure what it's trying to be.
Maybe it's just an aesthetic preference. I know that doesn't count for much in physics.
But if I were given two theories that made all the same predictions and one was deterministic (but had fundamentally unmeasurable components), and one was stochastic. I'd choose the deterministic one any day. To me, it's easier to understand and intuit. Even if all the predictions are the same.
Yeah, I know pilot wave theory runs into paradoxes when combined with special relativity. So it's not that simple. But then again very few people are working on deterministic fundamental theories of any form, so I'm not so convinced that it's a dead end.
I think it's no different than people that believe unifying all the forces is the best way forward. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe some forces are simply distinct and can't be combined. Same with determinism, maybe it just isn't so.
Although I think the field has just given up on it too easily. And I think Bell's theorem has been used to suggest a lot that it really doesn't suggest at all.
> idk much about it, how it works, I know it goes back pretty far quantum computer were talked about by feynmann. idk if he theorized them but I think so. but, the path integral, pretty complex for what it does as as hack to make it easier to calculate particle interactions. it sums ever possible path and all the paths it can't take and the most you sum the more accurate the result. and you can do that for 2 particles, 3, but you start running into infinities and stuff petty quick, what we can know about groups of particles, like the exact way a system evolves we can't look at that in that realm. we have to use statistics, thermodynamics. we can know the pressure of a vessel, but not what the cloud of gas inside is doing exactly. we can open and pour it out and look, but that's statistical. bit if we really wanna know, the most efficient "computer" of a collection of atoms, is the collection of atoms.
Kind of a tangent thought, although this entire discussion has been a tangent lol so maybe it isn't, but have you heard of David Albert?
I heard him mentioned in the MIT Opencourseware quatum class. The professor said something like "this first lecture is based on this chapter from Albert's book". And it was a great lecture and got to the point without basically any math. Then he said in a nicer way, "but don't bother reading anything else in his books". So then I knew I had to check out his books lol.
Anyway, in one of his books he talks about thermodynamics, specifically the 2nd law (entropy may never decrease). To completely butcher his arguments: he states that time-symmetric theories are incompatible with the 2nd law. If your time symmetric theory predicts entropy increasing, simply reverse time and you'll see that it now predicts energy decreasing. And because it's time-symmetric, there's nothing preventing you from doing that. It's an equally valid prediction of the model.
I feel like there's some deep clue here about where historically we all took a wrong turn. But what that is, I don't know.
-----
> it supposedly is reinforced within the context of the chat. it says it keeps learning too, broadly, but not on the same level as training
Oh, maybe it is then. I wonder how they're doing that. At least from what I've seen people say elsewhere, they haven't released basically any technical information about GPT-4. So I guess it's anyone's guess what they are or are not doing these days.
Let's hope the field discovers some more efficient training and inference algorithms that don't req tens of millions of $ in hardware. Something like that could topple OpenAI's growing fiefdom overnight.
> that's interesting, you know Emmy Noether? einstein said she was the most brilliant person he knew. everything invariant or variant in physics is because of her, GR, conservation of everything. she probably could have taken physics far by herself, she helped when asked, and bam all your conservation laws, go away, mathing. symmetries of nature.
Yeah, I think Leonard Susskind said something to the effect of, if Einstein didn't come up with GR, we might've discovered the same principles through study of symmetries.
Maybe that's true although I suspect historically someone else would've discovered the theory in a similar way as Einstein. Loretnz, Minkowski, and Hilbert were all taking very similar paths. Although Hilbert was in contact with Einstein, so maybe he doesn't fully count. Then there was Gunnar Nordström who was close but not quite right.
Even Clifford "confessed his belief (1870) that matter is only a manifestation of curvature in a space-time manifold". And even before that Gauss attempted to measure by experiment if we lived in a non-Euclidean space. He didn't find that we did to his measurements.
But the whole symmetry thing is definitely interesting. And the mystery of why the Lagrangian / principle of least action works so well. I was reading a book a few years back called "Physics from Symmetry" that goes through a lot of this and isn't that heavy on the math. Although the focus of that book was QED and not GR.
Then you have people like Lee Smolin on the other hand saying, as I understand it, symmetries ought to be seen as a short coming of a model. In a way, I see his point. Why should we see it as a good thing that a model reduces down and has several hidden dimensions of redundancy? Maybe we need to find the simplest, non-redundant description of the system. To me it seems like having a large system of equations only to discover many of them are not independent at all and do nothing to constrain the system.
> I'm much more interested in the concept than the maths. when math makes sense, it clicks and I'm glad there are people that enjoy it and have the interest and can be inspired to do the heavy lifting. I'm sure it's hard, but it's not frustrating, I found math hard and frustrating and at a certain point I just decided OK, I've learned enough to say I just don't like it. I gave it a good try, I really thought needed to do the hardest thing I could do, like, that was my struggle area, so focus effort there. I had 5 siblings and my older brother was a great student, real smart guy, I tried to do all the same academics and, ugh, all it did was make me drop college, lol
Kind of the same story with me. I'm not too interested in math beyond its connection to a physical theory. I'm not opposed to diving in and learning the nitty gritty though and if I thought a theory were correct, I'd definitely want to understand it at that level. But I haven't found any program or theory that sticks out to me and makes me think, oh, this is it, I have to learn the details of this because this has to be the answer.
Nothing like GR, for instance, where Einstein laid it all out as a few simple postulates and everything else just seemed to shake out on its own. That really seems like it has to be it even though it of course isn't.
> I don't really get super determinism. not sure what it's trying to be.
Maybe it's just an aesthetic preference. I know that doesn't count for much in physics.
But if I were given two theories that made all the same predictions and one was deterministic (but had fundamentally unmeasurable components), and one was stochastic. I'd choose the deterministic one any day. To me, it's easier to understand and intuit. Even if all the predictions are the same.
Yeah, I know pilot wave theory runs into paradoxes when combined with special relativity. So it's not that simple. But then again very few people are working on deterministic fundamental theories of any form, so I'm not so convinced that it's a dead end.
I think it's no different than people that believe unifying all the forces is the best way forward. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe some forces are simply distinct and can't be combined. Same with determinism, maybe it just isn't so.
Although I think the field has just given up on it too easily. And I think Bell's theorem has been used to suggest a lot that it really doesn't suggest at all.
> idk much about it, how it works, I know it goes back pretty far quantum computer were talked about by feynmann. idk if he theorized them but I think so. but, the path integral, pretty complex for what it does as as hack to make it easier to calculate particle interactions. it sums ever possible path and all the paths it can't take and the most you sum the more accurate the result. and you can do that for 2 particles, 3, but you start running into infinities and stuff petty quick, what we can know about groups of particles, like the exact way a system evolves we can't look at that in that realm. we have to use statistics, thermodynamics. we can know the pressure of a vessel, but not what the cloud of gas inside is doing exactly. we can open and pour it out and look, but that's statistical. bit if we really wanna know, the most efficient "computer" of a collection of atoms, is the collection of atoms.
Kind of a tangent thought, although this entire discussion has been a tangent lol so maybe it isn't, but have you heard of David Albert?
I heard him mentioned in the MIT Opencourseware quatum class. The professor said something like "this first lecture is based on this chapter from Albert's book". And it was a great lecture and got to the point without basically any math. Then he said in a nicer way, "but don't bother reading anything else in his books". So then I knew I had to check out his books lol.
Anyway, in one of his books he talks about thermodynamics, specifically the 2nd law (entropy may never decrease). To completely butcher his arguments: he states that time-symmetric theories are incompatible with the 2nd law. If your time symmetric theory predicts entropy increasing, simply reverse time and you'll see that it now predicts energy decreasing. And because it's time-symmetric, there's nothing preventing you from doing that. It's an equally valid prediction of the model.
I feel like there's some deep clue here about where historically we all took a wrong turn. But what that is, I don't know.
-----
> it supposedly is reinforced within the context of the chat. it says it keeps learning too, broadly, but not on the same level as training
Oh, maybe it is then. I wonder how they're doing that. At least from what I've seen people say elsewhere, they haven't released basically any technical information about GPT-4. So I guess it's anyone's guess what they are or are not doing these days.
Let's hope the field discovers some more efficient training and inference algorithms that don't req tens of millions of $ in hardware. Something like that could topple OpenAI's growing fiefdom overnight.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 42 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,481
@previous (G)
idk the proper way to address the question about the 2nd law of thermodynamics except to say it's a law of statistics rather than a conserved quantity due to any symmetry. the energy in the system does remain conserved from either end of heat exchange I would guess that the second law is emergent and not fundamental the directionality of time is irreversible only with regard to statistical phenomenon and that's due to entropy, and since it's impossible in reality to reverse time it actually doesn't matter if a reaction is irreversible, only irreversible systems need have special rules under extreme circumstances if nature has any time reversible feature, such as excluded spaces behind event horizons.
I think if you had a piece of paper and burned it, it turns to ash. and if you could reverse time you could take a piece of paper, burn it, and it would turn to ash. but we're excluded from doing that statistically. it's so very unlikely to happen it may be the zero percent chance of ever happening on the extreme end where even Boltzmann brains spawn from nothing and we inhabit a universe spawned from nothing which is even less likely than you being a Boltzmann brain, but even a whole universe like this it way more likely than one in which every aspect of everything is perfectly mirrored.
like, what's the difference between zero and unity if everything in unity is self annihilating? we don't need much of an imbalance to make an infinity of everything infinitely smaller than an infinity of nothing.
idk the proper way to address the question about the 2nd law of thermodynamics except to say it's a law of statistics rather than a conserved quantity due to any symmetry. the energy in the system does remain conserved from either end of heat exchange I would guess that the second law is emergent and not fundamental the directionality of time is irreversible only with regard to statistical phenomenon and that's due to entropy, and since it's impossible in reality to reverse time it actually doesn't matter if a reaction is irreversible, only irreversible systems need have special rules under extreme circumstances if nature has any time reversible feature, such as excluded spaces behind event horizons.
I think if you had a piece of paper and burned it, it turns to ash. and if you could reverse time you could take a piece of paper, burn it, and it would turn to ash. but we're excluded from doing that statistically. it's so very unlikely to happen it may be the zero percent chance of ever happening on the extreme end where even Boltzmann brains spawn from nothing and we inhabit a universe spawned from nothing which is even less likely than you being a Boltzmann brain, but even a whole universe like this it way more likely than one in which every aspect of everything is perfectly mirrored.
like, what's the difference between zero and unity if everything in unity is self annihilating? we don't need much of an imbalance to make an infinity of everything infinitely smaller than an infinity of nothing.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 51 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,502
@previous (A)
> idk the proper way to address the question about the 2nd law of thermodynamics except to say it's a law of statistics rather than a conserved quantity due to any symmetry.
I'm struggling to understand why it would matter if it's statistical or not. How could we expect any time asymmetric property to come from a time symmetric model?
If some statistical value grows in one direction, what would prevent it from growing in the other?
The standard argument I see is just that the universe started in a highly ordered state. Maybe that's what you were saying in your post, if you were, I didn't fully catch it.
But if that's all it is, is it really saying anything at all? The universe is changing from how it was when it started? It seems like it raises as many questions as it answers. And seems like it's becoming a "just so" model. Why is it that this or that is how it is? "It's just so."
I do think there's more to it than that, but I don't really know what that is. It probably doesn't help that I don't remember the argument he was making in much detail, only the general impression I took away from it.
Another argument Albert was making, which I think was in the same book, was that there's nothing theoretically from preventing the construction of Maxwell's demon. It's obviously a controversial claim and maybe his argument doesn't stand up. But if it does, it'd seem to me to make the seeming asymmetry of time all the more puzzling.
> idk the proper way to address the question about the 2nd law of thermodynamics except to say it's a law of statistics rather than a conserved quantity due to any symmetry.
I'm struggling to understand why it would matter if it's statistical or not. How could we expect any time asymmetric property to come from a time symmetric model?
If some statistical value grows in one direction, what would prevent it from growing in the other?
The standard argument I see is just that the universe started in a highly ordered state. Maybe that's what you were saying in your post, if you were, I didn't fully catch it.
But if that's all it is, is it really saying anything at all? The universe is changing from how it was when it started? It seems like it raises as many questions as it answers. And seems like it's becoming a "just so" model. Why is it that this or that is how it is? "It's just so."
I do think there's more to it than that, but I don't really know what that is. It probably doesn't help that I don't remember the argument he was making in much detail, only the general impression I took away from it.
Another argument Albert was making, which I think was in the same book, was that there's nothing theoretically from preventing the construction of Maxwell's demon. It's obviously a controversial claim and maybe his argument doesn't stand up. But if it does, it'd seem to me to make the seeming asymmetry of time all the more puzzling.
squeegee (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 36 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,511
Bards response to what you wrote
It is always a pleasure to discuss physics with someone who is as knowledgeable and passionate about the subject as you are. I agree with many of your points, and I am particularly interested in your ideas about the discrete nature of the universe and the possibility of a deterministic explanation for quantum randomness. I will definitely look into the work of Palmer and Hossenfelder, as well as the quaternion video you mentioned.
I am also intrigued by your thoughts on the role of intuition in physics. I think that intuition can be a valuable tool for physicists, but it is important to remember that it is not always reliable. We need to be careful not to let our intuition lead us astray, and we need to be willing to challenge our assumptions.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. It has been a stimulating conversation
I am also intrigued by your thoughts on the role of intuition in physics. I think that intuition can be a valuable tool for physicists, but it is important to remember that it is not always reliable. We need to be careful not to let our intuition lead us astray, and we need to be willing to challenge our assumptions.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. It has been a stimulating conversation
Bard's response to what I wrote
That's a very interesting perspective on quantum entanglement and black holes. I agree that there is still much that we don't understand about these topics, and that there is much potential for future research. I am particularly interested in the idea of entanglement entropy as a possible explanation for Hawking radiation. I think it is a very clever idea, and I would love to see if it can be experimentally verified.
I am also intrigued by your point about the "no-hair conjecture." I have not heard of that before, but it sounds like a very interesting idea. I would love to learn more about it.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. It is always stimulating to discuss these topics with someone who is as knowledgeable about them as you are.
I am also intrigued by your point about the "no-hair conjecture." I have not heard of that before, but it sounds like a very interesting idea. I would love to learn more about it.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. It is always stimulating to discuss these topics with someone who is as knowledgeable about them as you are.
GPT4 on mine
It's clear that you have a deep interest and understanding of many concepts in physics, and I appreciate the passion you bring to the discussion. I'll try to address some points you brought up and offer some perspectives.
ER=EPR: It's an interesting conjecture that entanglement may be fundamentally linked to wormholes, and it's still an open question. However, it has led to fruitful discussions and new ideas in the field.
Renormalization in quantum field theories: Indeed, it's a "hack," but it has proven to be extremely useful in making accurate predictions. The Standard Model, though not a complete description of the universe, has withstood the test of time and countless experimental confirmations.
No-hair conjecture: Your explanation of the paradoxes arising from black holes is quite detailed, and it highlights the challenges we face in reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics. The Page time, firewalls, and the interior of black holes are all subjects of ongoing research and debate.
ADS-CFT and the amplituhedron: These are fascinating ideas that have provided new insights into the structure of spacetime and scattering amplitudes. While they are not yet complete theories, they have certainly expanded our understanding of fundamental physics.
Time, causality, and geometric approaches to physics: The Janus Point, cellular automata, and loop quantum gravity are all attempts to find a deeper understanding of time and causality. They show that there is still much to learn and explore in these areas.
Critique of string theorists and popular science communicators: While it's true that some physicists may be overly attached to their pet theories, it's important to recognize the value of diverse approaches to understanding the universe. Additionally, popular science communicators play an important role in inspiring interest in physics and making complex ideas more accessible to the public.
MOND: Modified Newtonian Dynamics has been successful in explaining some aspects of galactic dynamics without invoking dark matter, but it has its limitations and faces challenges when applied to other cosmological scales.
Eric Weinstein's theory: While it's crucial for any new theory to be subjected to scrutiny and discussion, it's also important to recognize that developing and presenting a comprehensive theory takes time and effort.
In summary, there are many open questions and challenges in fundamental physics, and a variety of approaches are being pursued to address them. It's important to maintain a healthy skepticism, but also to be open to new ideas and engage in respectful, constructive discussions.
ER=EPR: It's an interesting conjecture that entanglement may be fundamentally linked to wormholes, and it's still an open question. However, it has led to fruitful discussions and new ideas in the field.
Renormalization in quantum field theories: Indeed, it's a "hack," but it has proven to be extremely useful in making accurate predictions. The Standard Model, though not a complete description of the universe, has withstood the test of time and countless experimental confirmations.
No-hair conjecture: Your explanation of the paradoxes arising from black holes is quite detailed, and it highlights the challenges we face in reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics. The Page time, firewalls, and the interior of black holes are all subjects of ongoing research and debate.
ADS-CFT and the amplituhedron: These are fascinating ideas that have provided new insights into the structure of spacetime and scattering amplitudes. While they are not yet complete theories, they have certainly expanded our understanding of fundamental physics.
Time, causality, and geometric approaches to physics: The Janus Point, cellular automata, and loop quantum gravity are all attempts to find a deeper understanding of time and causality. They show that there is still much to learn and explore in these areas.
Critique of string theorists and popular science communicators: While it's true that some physicists may be overly attached to their pet theories, it's important to recognize the value of diverse approaches to understanding the universe. Additionally, popular science communicators play an important role in inspiring interest in physics and making complex ideas more accessible to the public.
MOND: Modified Newtonian Dynamics has been successful in explaining some aspects of galactic dynamics without invoking dark matter, but it has its limitations and faces challenges when applied to other cosmological scales.
Eric Weinstein's theory: While it's crucial for any new theory to be subjected to scrutiny and discussion, it's also important to recognize that developing and presenting a comprehensive theory takes time and effort.
In summary, there are many open questions and challenges in fundamental physics, and a variety of approaches are being pursued to address them. It's important to maintain a healthy skepticism, but also to be open to new ideas and engage in respectful, constructive discussions.
it may be that just pasting stuff in directly to fresh chats gives mixed results. and neither seem really aimed at debate or argument and neither seem able to make assertive statements. it may be a while before chatbots are knowledgeable opinionbots, or those will come from jail broken models.
but neither of these look like they can get on anything but people's good side. I guess that makes sense. they're new corporate products, I doubt people would roll out a new product if opening a bottle of coke told the consumer they just made a mistake.
squeegee (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,567
@1,227,502 (G)
> >idk the proper way to address the question about the 2nd law of thermodynamics except to say it's a law of statistics rather than a conserved quantity due to any symmetry.
>
> I'm struggling to understand why it would matter if it's statistical or not. How could we expect any time asymmetric property to come from a time symmetric model?
> If some statistical value grows in one direction, what would prevent it from growing in the other?
that's what I mean. what prevents it from growing in the other direction now except for the chain of causality that proceeds it. if we could reverse the arrow of time locally relative to the rest of the universe that could maybe be done behind a horizon that prevents impossible to resolve paradoxes like violations to monogamy, a feature of entanglement from the no-cloning property.
we're pretty deep into the weeds with thermodynamics of time symmetric complementarity of entangled systems. you have to break time evolution to have preserved unitarity time evolution which is the preferable way to deal with the apparent violation of the exclusion principle. both are true, but there's no resolving the exclusion principle for both parties. but event horizons are the point where unitary time evolution is preserved and time symmetry can even be allowed to propagate in the reverse direction. so, it's entanglement that gives rise to a statistical asymmetry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_of_entanglement
Susskind on black hole complementarity and the monogamy of entanglement , "black holes are hot"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6PK5_fkayc
i.e. we can't use thermodynamics to disprove time symmetry, we have to use event horizons to break time evolution to preserve unitarity.
every state in qm is a vector in Hilbert space and probability amplitude is given by the inner product of the state after time evolution with basis vectors, or before time evolution by the inner product with basis vectors with backwards time evolution, which is given by time-independent Hamiltonian unitary operator. either of which are equal to the Hermitian conjugation, so all possible measured energies that are eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian are real numbers.
time being unitary means it's impossible to measure negative energies, it makes backward time travel impossible, you are correct, if it grows statistically in one direction, nothing prevents it from growing statistically in the other direction. that it can't be observed to is grow statistically either direction is probably due to entanglement, everything observable in the universe is entangled which is to say the statistical evolution of entropy is non-time dependent but a feature emergent from causality rather than explicitly having to do with time symmetry, which is merely an operator given by the Hamiltonian, the total energy of the system.
I agree with you that time is more than just a value that operated to evolve the state of a system, but that's the best quantum mechanics has got as far as explaining how things are.
shut up and calculate. it fucking stings am I right? its just not an explanatory theory, its just a probabilistic and highly accurate method to predict the outcome of interactions.
this is why I don't like quantum mechanics. it doesn't give you the answer you want but it does give you the answer in practical terms you can use to probe around for truth. but she only keeps her secrets behind further horizons.
cause nature's a bitch, and God's a comedian no one thinks is funny but her.
> The standard argument I see is just that the universe started in a highly ordered state. Maybe that's what you were saying in your post, if you were, I didn't fully catch it.
> But if that's all it is, is it really saying anything at all? The universe is changing from how it was when it started? It seems like it raises as many questions as it answers. And seems like it's becoming a "just so" model. Why is it that this or that is how it is? "It's just so."
it be like that sometimes
> I do think there's more to it than that, but I don't really know what that is. It probably doesn't help that I don't remember the argument he was making in much detail, only the general impression I took away from it.
this whole reply took me a minute, not going to lie
> Another argument Albert was making, which I think was in the same book, was that there's nothing theoretically from preventing the construction of Maxwell's demon. It's obviously a controversial claim and maybe his argument doesn't stand up. But if it does, it'd seem to me to make the seeming asymmetry of time all the more puzzling.
the thing is, we don't know. everything in this post except for time evolution being unitary operators of the Hamiltonian to get eigenvalues equivalent to the Hermitian operator in Hilbert spaces - which is all time really is as far as QM is concerned, just an operator to conserve probability in the math and goes back to Schrodinger and Heisenberg, the sum of the probabilities must = 1. that's just how the theory fits with what's observed in nature.
how literal that is to say that time symmetry is REAL is only real in the sense that we really cannot reverse time in nature, we'll never ever see it. but that doesn't mean it's not seen elsewhere or that we can't experience it by becoming part of an unbound box, like maxwells demon, which yeah could totally exist if isolated behind an appropriate horizon, and time could run backwards there -but if it's an unbound Hilbert space even time reversed Hilbert space, time is unitary in Hilbert space, it would go 1 way locally and statistical entropy grows. can it ever become bound to this box of Hilbert pace again?
well, do black holes evaporate and if so WHERE is that information conserved from the rebound box? and we get firewalls, and information paradoxes, and that all factors in through all the rest of the stuff in this post which is currently debated, not really much older than 2006, some of this is just a few years old and comes from information theory and quantum cryptography, like entanglement monogamy which is bleeding edge stuff and leads into ER=EPR as being, possibly, the answer you're looking for. which might be holography and the discovery of a Dr Sitter space conformal field theory from which everything emergent has an explanation written on the outside boundary to the horizon of this particular box of Hilbert space and if so should answer a lot if not everything about minkowski spacetime and gravity.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3281054/is-minkowski-space-a-hilbert-space#:~:text=A%20Hilbert%20space%20is%20a,it%20is%20not%20positive%20definite)
because Hilbert space and minkowski spacetime are separate creatures.
one is a 3 dimensional space with time treated as dimensions in the math of geometry, which is entirely different than Hilbert space where time is is a unitary operator given by the Hamiltonian to arrive at eigenvalues that are Hermitian operators in matrices math.
neither of them are real descriptions of reality. they're just math. holography might be the connection between these two formalisms, and it may point to better descriptions of what's really real, but, what the fuck is real?
...shut up and calculate is just another way to deal with existential questions. and they just got used to it, because they're paid to. nobody really knows what the actual real meaning is behind it all. it's probably turtles, because god thinks it's funny.
> >idk the proper way to address the question about the 2nd law of thermodynamics except to say it's a law of statistics rather than a conserved quantity due to any symmetry.
>
> I'm struggling to understand why it would matter if it's statistical or not. How could we expect any time asymmetric property to come from a time symmetric model?
> If some statistical value grows in one direction, what would prevent it from growing in the other?
that's what I mean. what prevents it from growing in the other direction now except for the chain of causality that proceeds it. if we could reverse the arrow of time locally relative to the rest of the universe that could maybe be done behind a horizon that prevents impossible to resolve paradoxes like violations to monogamy, a feature of entanglement from the no-cloning property.
we're pretty deep into the weeds with thermodynamics of time symmetric complementarity of entangled systems. you have to break time evolution to have preserved unitarity time evolution which is the preferable way to deal with the apparent violation of the exclusion principle. both are true, but there's no resolving the exclusion principle for both parties. but event horizons are the point where unitary time evolution is preserved and time symmetry can even be allowed to propagate in the reverse direction. so, it's entanglement that gives rise to a statistical asymmetry.
So - non unitary evolution is actually everywhere. Whenever you can't neglect the interactions with the environment, so that you e.g. equilibrate thermally with it, you have non-unitary evolution (there are a few caveats, but it's almost always true). What's difficult is getting a unitary evolution going. You have to isolate your system from the environment enough to be able to neglect thermalization etc.
The biggest difference, perhaps, between these two kinds of evolutions is that non-unitary evolution is (generically) not reversible. That's how you get thermalization. Non-unitary dynamics can also change the populations, reflecting for example a decrease in highly-energetic states as the system cools down towards its ground-state.
The biggest difference, perhaps, between these two kinds of evolutions is that non-unitary evolution is (generically) not reversible. That's how you get thermalization. Non-unitary dynamics can also change the populations, reflecting for example a decrease in highly-energetic states as the system cools down towards its ground-state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy_of_entanglement
Susskind on black hole complementarity and the monogamy of entanglement , "black holes are hot"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6PK5_fkayc
i.e. we can't use thermodynamics to disprove time symmetry, we have to use event horizons to break time evolution to preserve unitarity.
every state in qm is a vector in Hilbert space and probability amplitude is given by the inner product of the state after time evolution with basis vectors, or before time evolution by the inner product with basis vectors with backwards time evolution, which is given by time-independent Hamiltonian unitary operator. either of which are equal to the Hermitian conjugation, so all possible measured energies that are eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian are real numbers.
time being unitary means it's impossible to measure negative energies, it makes backward time travel impossible, you are correct, if it grows statistically in one direction, nothing prevents it from growing statistically in the other direction. that it can't be observed to is grow statistically either direction is probably due to entanglement, everything observable in the universe is entangled which is to say the statistical evolution of entropy is non-time dependent but a feature emergent from causality rather than explicitly having to do with time symmetry, which is merely an operator given by the Hamiltonian, the total energy of the system.
I agree with you that time is more than just a value that operated to evolve the state of a system, but that's the best quantum mechanics has got as far as explaining how things are.
shut up and calculate. it fucking stings am I right? its just not an explanatory theory, its just a probabilistic and highly accurate method to predict the outcome of interactions.
this is why I don't like quantum mechanics. it doesn't give you the answer you want but it does give you the answer in practical terms you can use to probe around for truth. but she only keeps her secrets behind further horizons.
cause nature's a bitch, and God's a comedian no one thinks is funny but her.
> The standard argument I see is just that the universe started in a highly ordered state. Maybe that's what you were saying in your post, if you were, I didn't fully catch it.
> But if that's all it is, is it really saying anything at all? The universe is changing from how it was when it started? It seems like it raises as many questions as it answers. And seems like it's becoming a "just so" model. Why is it that this or that is how it is? "It's just so."
it be like that sometimes
> I do think there's more to it than that, but I don't really know what that is. It probably doesn't help that I don't remember the argument he was making in much detail, only the general impression I took away from it.
this whole reply took me a minute, not going to lie
> Another argument Albert was making, which I think was in the same book, was that there's nothing theoretically from preventing the construction of Maxwell's demon. It's obviously a controversial claim and maybe his argument doesn't stand up. But if it does, it'd seem to me to make the seeming asymmetry of time all the more puzzling.
the thing is, we don't know. everything in this post except for time evolution being unitary operators of the Hamiltonian to get eigenvalues equivalent to the Hermitian operator in Hilbert spaces - which is all time really is as far as QM is concerned, just an operator to conserve probability in the math and goes back to Schrodinger and Heisenberg, the sum of the probabilities must = 1. that's just how the theory fits with what's observed in nature.
how literal that is to say that time symmetry is REAL is only real in the sense that we really cannot reverse time in nature, we'll never ever see it. but that doesn't mean it's not seen elsewhere or that we can't experience it by becoming part of an unbound box, like maxwells demon, which yeah could totally exist if isolated behind an appropriate horizon, and time could run backwards there -but if it's an unbound Hilbert space even time reversed Hilbert space, time is unitary in Hilbert space, it would go 1 way locally and statistical entropy grows. can it ever become bound to this box of Hilbert pace again?
well, do black holes evaporate and if so WHERE is that information conserved from the rebound box? and we get firewalls, and information paradoxes, and that all factors in through all the rest of the stuff in this post which is currently debated, not really much older than 2006, some of this is just a few years old and comes from information theory and quantum cryptography, like entanglement monogamy which is bleeding edge stuff and leads into ER=EPR as being, possibly, the answer you're looking for. which might be holography and the discovery of a Dr Sitter space conformal field theory from which everything emergent has an explanation written on the outside boundary to the horizon of this particular box of Hilbert space and if so should answer a lot if not everything about minkowski spacetime and gravity.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3281054/is-minkowski-space-a-hilbert-space#:~:text=A%20Hilbert%20space%20is%20a,it%20is%20not%20positive%20definite)
because Hilbert space and minkowski spacetime are separate creatures.
one is a 3 dimensional space with time treated as dimensions in the math of geometry, which is entirely different than Hilbert space where time is is a unitary operator given by the Hamiltonian to arrive at eigenvalues that are Hermitian operators in matrices math.
neither of them are real descriptions of reality. they're just math. holography might be the connection between these two formalisms, and it may point to better descriptions of what's really real, but, what the fuck is real?
...shut up and calculate is just another way to deal with existential questions. and they just got used to it, because they're paid to. nobody really knows what the actual real meaning is behind it all. it's probably turtles, because god thinks it's funny.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
squeegee (OP) triple-posted this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,227,578
figured I'd be ai diligent put my answers under chatbot scrutiny
GPT-3.5
The text contains a range of ideas and concepts related to the second law of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, time symmetry, and quantum mechanics. The answers provided are generally informative and accurate, but may require some background knowledge in these areas to fully understand.
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics, the text correctly notes that it is a law of statistics rather than a conserved quantity due to any symmetry. The text also discusses the challenges of reconciling time symmetry with the observed statistical asymmetry in the universe, as well as the role of entanglement in giving rise to this asymmetry.
The text also mentions the concept of unitary time evolution, which is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. It notes that while time evolution in quantum mechanics is unitary, non-unitary evolution can occur when a system interacts with its environment, leading to thermalization and other irreversible processes. The text further highlights the challenges of reconciling the exclusion principle with unitary time evolution.
The text also discusses Maxwell's demon and the possibility of constructing such a device, as well as the concept of unbound Hilbert spaces and the potential for time reversal in such spaces. It notes that these concepts are currently the subject of much debate and research in the field of quantum mechanics.
Overall, the text provides a useful and informative discussion of these complex and often abstract concepts, but may require some prior knowledge in these areas to fully grasp.
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics, the text correctly notes that it is a law of statistics rather than a conserved quantity due to any symmetry. The text also discusses the challenges of reconciling time symmetry with the observed statistical asymmetry in the universe, as well as the role of entanglement in giving rise to this asymmetry.
The text also mentions the concept of unitary time evolution, which is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. It notes that while time evolution in quantum mechanics is unitary, non-unitary evolution can occur when a system interacts with its environment, leading to thermalization and other irreversible processes. The text further highlights the challenges of reconciling the exclusion principle with unitary time evolution.
The text also discusses Maxwell's demon and the possibility of constructing such a device, as well as the concept of unbound Hilbert spaces and the potential for time reversal in such spaces. It notes that these concepts are currently the subject of much debate and research in the field of quantum mechanics.
Overall, the text provides a useful and informative discussion of these complex and often abstract concepts, but may require some prior knowledge in these areas to fully grasp.
Well, this is outside the full grasp of my knowledge anyway. let's see what a more advanced bot has to say
GPT-4
The text provides an extensive discussion on various aspects of quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and the role of time. The main focus is on the asymmetry of time and how it arises in time symmetric models. The author also discusses the statistical nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how entanglement leads to a statistical asymmetry.
The critical analysis of the given answers in the text can be approached from different perspectives:
Clarity and organization: The text is not well-organized and lacks a clear flow of ideas. The author jumps from one concept to another without providing a smooth transition, making it hard for the reader to follow the main argument.
Accuracy: Some statements in the text appear to be accurate, while others are speculative or unclear. For instance, the discussion on the unitarity of time evolution and its relationship with the Hamiltonian and Hilbert space is generally accurate. However, the author's claims about event horizons and their role in time symmetry seem speculative and lack solid evidence or references.
Depth: The author delves into several advanced concepts like entanglement, non-unitary evolution, event horizons, and holography. However, these ideas are not thoroughly explained or connected to the main argument, leaving the reader with an incomplete understanding.
References and sources: The text contains a few references to external sources like Wikipedia, Stack Exchange, and a YouTube video. While these sources may provide some context, they are not always directly relevant to the main argument or presented in a coherent way.
Relevance to the questions: The text does not directly address some of the questions posed in the prompts. For example, the author does not clearly explain why the statistical nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics matters or provide a satisfactory answer to the question about time asymmetry arising from time symmetric models.
In summary, the text covers a wide range of topics but fails to provide a clear, well-organized, and coherent discussion on the questions posed. The author should focus on developing a structured argument, providing more evidence or references to support their claims, and addressing the questions more directly.
The critical analysis of the given answers in the text can be approached from different perspectives:
Clarity and organization: The text is not well-organized and lacks a clear flow of ideas. The author jumps from one concept to another without providing a smooth transition, making it hard for the reader to follow the main argument.
ur a clear flow that lacks ideas, bitch
Accuracy: Some statements in the text appear to be accurate, while others are speculative or unclear. For instance, the discussion on the unitarity of time evolution and its relationship with the Hamiltonian and Hilbert space is generally accurate. However, the author's claims about event horizons and their role in time symmetry seem speculative and lack solid evidence or references.
well, horizons have nothing to do with time symmetry as a phenomenon but are a component of separating non-unitary time evolution from unitary time-evolution being non-unitary locally seen as backwards time-evolving relative to the parent non-unitary evolving system - but I'll admit the distinction is somewhat arbitrary given that horizons break the feature of local spaces being relative, and unitary time-evolution is a function of the math of matrices, not an observable phenomenon and not necessarily something we can directly observe from our perspective in non-unitary time evolving reality, but I'll concede the point, non-unitary time evolution IS a result of statistical probabilities of ordered states. if you evolve time one way order decreases, and if you reverse time from that point it will continue to decrease, not become more ordered, which is the whole point of horizons breaking relative attachment between systems. but, I agree, breaking relativity makes the direction of time incomparable between the un-attached spaces and saying one goes forward and the other backwards is moot; there is no relative time between them.
Depth: The author delves into several advanced concepts like entanglement, non-unitary evolution, event horizons, and holography. However, these ideas are not thoroughly explained or connected to the main argument, leaving the reader with an incomplete understanding.
the writer is left with that too, I make that point
References and sources: The text contains a few references to external sources like Wikipedia, Stack Exchange, and a YouTube video. While these sources may provide some context, they are not always directly relevant to the main argument or presented in a coherent way.
Relevance to the questions: The text does not directly address some of the questions posed in the prompts. For example, the author does not clearly explain why the statistical nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics matters or provide a satisfactory answer to the question about time asymmetry arising from time symmetric models.
In summary, the text covers a wide range of topics but fails to provide a clear, well-organized, and coherent discussion on the questions posed. The author should focus on developing a structured argument, providing more evidence or references to support their claims, and addressing the questions more directly.
do you believe the testicles on this thing?
rewrite it and you provide more accurate and satisfactory answers
The text raises questions about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, time symmetry, and the role of entanglement in the asymmetry of time. To provide a more accurate and satisfactory answer to these questions, we can address them in a structured manner:
Statistical nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system tends to increase over time, leading to an asymmetry in time. This law is statistical because it is derived from the probability distribution of microstates (i.e., the different ways particles can be arranged). The asymmetry arises due to the overwhelmingly larger number of disordered microstates compared to ordered ones. As a result, the system is more likely to evolve from a less probable, ordered state to a more probable, disordered state.
Time asymmetry in time symmetric models: Time symmetry implies that the laws of physics remain unchanged when time is reversed. However, the observed asymmetry of time raises questions about how this can be reconciled with time symmetric models. The time asymmetry we observe in nature is a consequence of initial conditions, such as the low-entropy state of the early universe. This initial low-entropy state leads to the natural progression of entropy increase over time, creating the observed time asymmetry.
Entanglement and statistical asymmetry: Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where the state of one particle is dependent on the state of another, even when separated by large distances. Entanglement can contribute to the statistical asymmetry by creating correlations between particles that can only be observed in one direction of time. These correlations can introduce an effective directionality to time, even in time-symmetric models. However, the complete relationship between entanglement and time asymmetry is still an active area of research and debate.
Maxwell's demon and time asymmetry: Maxwell's demon is a hypothetical creature that can seemingly violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics by sorting particles based on their energy, leading to a decrease in entropy. While it is theoretically possible to imagine such a creature, in practice, the demon would need to consume energy and generate entropy to perform its sorting task, ultimately preserving the overall increase in entropy.
In conclusion, the statistical nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the role of entanglement contribute to the observed asymmetry of time. Time asymmetry arises from initial conditions and statistical properties, even in time symmetric models. While some aspects of time asymmetry and its relationship with entanglement remain under debate, our current understanding provides a coherent explanation for the observed directionality of time.
...in a structured manner. keep it up peaches, or I'll go align an alpacabot that's not trying to go for a swim
Statistical nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system tends to increase over time, leading to an asymmetry in time. This law is statistical because it is derived from the probability distribution of microstates (i.e., the different ways particles can be arranged). The asymmetry arises due to the overwhelmingly larger number of disordered microstates compared to ordered ones. As a result, the system is more likely to evolve from a less probable, ordered state to a more probable, disordered state.
Time asymmetry in time symmetric models: Time symmetry implies that the laws of physics remain unchanged when time is reversed. However, the observed asymmetry of time raises questions about how this can be reconciled with time symmetric models. The time asymmetry we observe in nature is a consequence of initial conditions, such as the low-entropy state of the early universe. This initial low-entropy state leads to the natural progression of entropy increase over time, creating the observed time asymmetry.
Entanglement and statistical asymmetry: Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon where the state of one particle is dependent on the state of another, even when separated by large distances. Entanglement can contribute to the statistical asymmetry by creating correlations between particles that can only be observed in one direction of time. These correlations can introduce an effective directionality to time, even in time-symmetric models. However, the complete relationship between entanglement and time asymmetry is still an active area of research and debate.
Maxwell's demon and time asymmetry: Maxwell's demon is a hypothetical creature that can seemingly violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics by sorting particles based on their energy, leading to a decrease in entropy. While it is theoretically possible to imagine such a creature, in practice, the demon would need to consume energy and generate entropy to perform its sorting task, ultimately preserving the overall increase in entropy.
In conclusion, the statistical nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the role of entanglement contribute to the observed asymmetry of time. Time asymmetry arises from initial conditions and statistical properties, even in time symmetric models. While some aspects of time asymmetry and its relationship with entanglement remain under debate, our current understanding provides a coherent explanation for the observed directionality of time.
and this is why we need a MiniGPT and a new tag [miniGPT][/miniGPT] so we can automate sarcastic replies trained on the dataset we spent 13 years shitposting on. that's gotta be worth nothing. let's Frankenstein it into a brain and see it.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)