Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Piston Developers 🍿🥤

@pistondeveloper.bsky.social

6K followers 3.3K following 9.2K posts

A modular game engine written in Rust https://piston.rs Research branch: https://advancedresearch.github.io Discord (Piston): https://discord.gg/TkDnS9x Discord (AdvancedResearch): https://discord.gg/JkrhJJRBR2

piston.rs

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · Nov 10

#StandWithUkraine 🇺🇦 (since Feb 27, 2022)

5 25 190

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 16h

Yeah. Disaster is an understatement.

Reposted by Piston Developers 🍿🥤

#TuckFrump @realtuckfrumper.bsky.social · 16h

Letitia James: 'I will not bow. I will not break'

thehill.com

Letitia James: ‘I will not bow. I will not break’

twp.ai

1 11 76

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 17h

We're now 55.5% on the way to finding minimum primbix of value 20. There are 26 CPU cores working on this search 24/7.

We know this number is less or equal to 294 698 527 560 839.

#primbix #research #advancedresearch

Reposted by Piston Developers 🍿🥤

David Andersen @poetriesbound.bsky.social · 1d

For @pistondeveloper.bsky.social,

This is a fair adaptation of #Oscar_Wilde's masterpiece about vanity.

I hope you enjoy it.

youtu.be/YbFf8dYmxE0?...

The Picture of Dorian Gray - John Gielgud - Peter Firth - Jeremy Brett - 1976 - Remastered 4K

YouTube video by Shakespeare Network

youtu.be

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

It's part of the research branch. At best, I can say it might be useful for game design. However, I wouldn't say that learning it makes you more effective at game design, or something.

Probably unrelated! 😜

Reposted by Piston Developers 🍿🥤

Dre (they/them) @dragontongue.bsky.social · 1d

Is this related to the game engine project?

1 1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

Maybe that's a kind of weirdness that humans have, that makes us unique in the sense that our way of existing and using symbols is not like what other beings out there who might be intelligent do. It could be something particular to humans.

So, we're weird? I'm OK with it!

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

Some versions of AGI might need deep intuition about language biases to know in detail how humans think.

If we can't build it, then trying to make AGI understand us might be a hopeless project. When you see how these properties affects soundness, it gets very weird and hard to solve.

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

Maybe some versions of AGI don't need any of this stuff. It might function perfectly fine while just ignoring these particular concerns because it's not human and doesn't do the kind of mistakes we do. It doesn't have to organize information the same way our brains do.

Some versions might need it.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

We can study language biases. However, there is no need to "fix" language biases in general. We just have to understand limitations and know how to apply language biases properly, so we don't make mistakes.

If we can do that, then I think it's "good enough". But, can AGI do that? I don't know.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

That's a common mistake people do in philosophy, that they think what they're working on will be useful in every possible context and make sense in every situation. I think that's a bad idea.

Language are limited for a reason. They have language biases. Otherwise, they wouldn't be effective tools.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

Not having to worry about ontology saves us a lot of philosophical headache. We know that Path Semantics is limited in this particular way. So, since we're real human beings, of course we have other perspectives due to ontology.

It would be kind of choking if it covered everything.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

The way I see it, the core axiom is the only thing that Path Semanticists study. It's about breaking everything down into something that can be understood from that perspective. That's the way we define "use of symbols".

Since this is just an axiom, there isn't any ontology. That's a relief.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

I just don't think the perspectives I have as Path Semanticist are the same perspectives I have as a person. I can tell the difference, because I gotten used to. The Path Semanticist in me is kind of an avatar, about use of symbols from the perspective of the core axiom of Path Semantics.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

Path Semantics is a field where people study how humans use symbols. That's it.

No ontology. Theorem proving isn't the important part. Just use of symbols.

Makes it clear what the field is about. Separates itself from other perspectives. I have other perspectives too, personally.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

So, there are surprisingly few problems to build bridges from Path Semantics to various domains of human knowledge. Despite that we don't see the entire picture, we can sort of see how a particular domain works. This property of Path Semantics is why we've started thinking about it that way.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

We know from Joker Calculus that when you build up these layers of depths in language biases, you go up into higher dualities. Since poetry builds on these layers, it could mean that poets stay at that level and don't go down to the more fundamental layers.

It makes poetry interesting formally.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

Nietzsche's thinking seems to be all about the abyss. Maybe he got that from the Late Schelling. He preferred short sentences with isolated ideas. Maybe he was also inspired by fragmentary thinking in sense of Schlegel.

Could be why some poets despise philosophy, saying philosophy is failed poetry.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

I just don't know yet what Schelling is thinking about precisely at the end of his life, or whether he's just generally pessimistic across a wide set of ideas he's exploring.

Anyway. We have some ideas already to work on. The abyss thing, we'll worry about that later on.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

I don't think there is a problem that there is an abyss out there in use of symbols. We just have to get a starting point and be able to explore the area around this starting point carefully.

We already have proofs that shows it gets very complex when you go up in levels. So, I'm not surprised.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

What Schelling describes his thinking at the end of his life, is a kind of like abyss. This abyss could be just how use of symbols keeps going and extending beyond all the formal theory we can throw at it.

It's not a stupid idea. Could be like higher homotopy levels, or something.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

At the end of his life, Schelling started to get pessimistic. Now, we have just formalized Early Schelling relative to Kant's Transcendental Logic using non-standard Path Semantics. Maybe we're wrong, but so far it seems reasonable.

So, we don't know yet what Late Schelling thought about.

1 1

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

Schelling is a philosopher that thought about this deeply, but without any supporting formal theory. He was optimistic at the beginning of his career and proposed a non-duality that is still studied in Western philosophy. Hegel turned that non-duality into his Immanent Contradiction.

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

There is a kind of connection between language bias and use of symbols. We don't understand yet what these connections are. Maybe one day we'll have advanced Path Semantics far enough to talk about it.

Path Semantics tries to push the limits of what we can talk about formally. But it keeps going.

Piston Developers 🍿🥤 @pistondeveloper.bsky.social · 1d

In mathematics we do today, we use symbols.

Use of symbols is the foundation of mathematics itself. When we talk about how people use symbols, we have to talk about language biases. People can use one symbol in one way, because there is a particular language bias. Another way: Different bias.