rime @rime@schelling.pt

the Nature function herself takes arbitrary coordinates in spacetime, and returns exact distributions of matter within those bounds.

"Nature speaks differential equations" pfff!! differential equations are like gobbledygook to her, and she takes offense at the notion that this is *what she's made of*.

> "Since Newton, mankind has come to realize that the laws of physics are always expressed in the language of differential equations."

this is wrong. differential equations is what we must *settle for* when finding the generators of the data is intractable. if u knew Nature herself, u wudn't be restricted to computing her step-by-step w infinitesimal step-sizes, u cud j interpolate btn arbitrary points w no loss in accuracy.

- the highest-avg-IQ academic subjects are mathematics and philosophy *because* they're also *less* financially profitable (thus, ppl go into them bc they're rly intellectually interested in them). the statistics doesn't seem to bear this out, but that's bc there are confounders—the underlying pattern still holds. :p

- more idr

- if u concentrate hard on finding ideas related to X, u increase the rate at which u become aware of X-related ideas, but u also decrease the threshold of X-relatedness required for becoming aware of them. thus, if u want to maximize the quality/purity of ur X-related ideas, u may wish to *avoid* looking for them too hard. this is the advantage of serendipity as an explicit search-strategy.

EXAMPLES:

- if u pay ppl to do X, u increase the number of ppl who do X, but u also dilute the field bc now ppl do X for monetary incentives PLUS intrinsic incentives, wheareas bfr it was only the latter.

in the context of AI alignment, it implies that the most aligned training-regimes are also likely to be really weak (and therefore expensive).

the paradox of selection: the purity of your selection-pressure is inversely proportional to its strength.

sorta obvious when phrased that way, but the point is that you can increase your selection-pressure over the true target by additionally selecting for increasingly less precise proxies. this increases the rate of true-positives and decreases false-negatives, but it also increases false-positives (confounders), and sometimes at a higher marginal rate.

tbc, I haven't processed this at all. I just needed to make a salient note to myself bc I'm in a hurry, and don't want to forget my uncertainty abt this. huge-if-true but still v unlikely.

reminder to self: resolve whether actually all of so-called "randomness" or "many-worldedness" in physics is a result of "incompressible logic". I'm torn btn finding this lecture completely baffling or utterly mundane. mby it's utterly mundane but its implications are huge? prob neither. noting this down bc I didn't expect myself to become uncertain abt many-worlds-interpretation based on a *wishy-washy lecture on logic*. WHAT THE HECK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owHuDGMLk5s&list=PL86ECDEDE3FA8D8D1&index=6

Please consider funding Johannes for alignment research or help make that happen: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2D74Ctr5Aj3Sb5f69/fund-me-please-i-work-so-hard-that-my-feet-start-bleeding

I endorse his approach as much as I can endorse anyone. (See e.g. Emrik's comment, and TsviBT's endorsement.)

video clip of me breathing with my eyes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_SAb2_rVCs

spelled out: IF u can interact w smth, it's real.

sometimes social reality falsely colors unreal things real, and we're better off seeing thru it; but don't forget to also look hard for that which has been made falsely unreal! there are colours there beyond our imagination.

Having soulfwly recited the Litany to myself on numerous (~500) occasions for just about one decade now, this is the first time I'm seeing it in the "one man's modus ponens…"-way.

"Anything untrue isn't there to be with." 🔄

https://youtu.be/aDD2Mg2g_aI?t=132

☙ what i mean by "serendipity rarely distributes ato causality" is that concentration of VoI is often thickest at the joint observation of causally ~unrelated processes. if u want the most generalizable variables, sampling seemingly-unrelated generators is like selectively filtering for stuff that applies everywhere.

☙ if u tune the sensitivity of u's detectors *down*, but sample nature's generators broadly and rapidly… u avoid the diminishing marginal returns associated w any given generator.

not bad for a day. if only this was what i *intended* to do w it.

⋯

Dear Diary,
I have discovered my latent ability to breathe with my eyes.

⋯

☙ "optimize your ideanet for serendipity + context-logistics"

☙ "resist temptation to use hierarchy to represent causality ior ontology of territory"

☙ "apply uniform noise to relatively amplify latent resonators."

ato the Debug Info, my RemNote database has 933980 internal links and 94989 "present rem" and 36133 "missing rem". tho calling it a "database" is an exaggeration. it's painfwly slow, sometimes bleeds info (e.g. links break). not sure how they define "missing rems", but yes, i'm definitely looking to transition to something else. /.\

some days it just clicks together.

for context: i write ideas/insights/learnings into my main knowledge-net, and make *transclusions* of especially memorable notes into my daily notes, so i can quickly look over recent things i've thought about.

the blue text is internal links, and i optimize my headlines and aliases for being easy to link to and search for.

Tip: If you're multilingual and you want to use speech-recognition to dictate in one language, you can use the other language for commands in order to minimize accidental conflicts.

tfw u tryna shush the *Narrator* on Windows Voice Access.