blakestacey

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 6 points 2 weeks ago

In using xcancel to look up Eric Weinstein's bonkers rants on Xitter, I exposed myself to Sabine Hossenfelder's comment section. The drivel, the fawning, the people asking chatbots about quantum gravity... It hurts, it hurts.

I am going to scrub my brain with Oliver Byrne's edition of Euclid.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 9 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

Eric "I will come to Harvard and espouse Numberwang Racism if you deign to invite me" Weinstein:

Invite me back to Harvard as the co-founder of the Science and Engineering Workforce Project in the @HarvardEcon department and I will give a talk on how this really works. You don’t have to pay me a cent if you video it.

I’ll cover:

The need to fire Claudine Gay.

The need to end activist studies depts.

University Bioweapon research

String Theory

CPI Cost of Living

Evolutionary theory applied to Humans

Low Dimensional Geometry

NSF STEM Shortage Panics

DEI hiring against merit

Epstein and Science

Cognitive abilities expectations in Geographicly widely separated populations.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

taking a bad paper too seriouslyHossenfelder starts her "Summary" section thusly:

I have shown here how the assumption that matter and geometry have the same fundamental origin requires the time evolution of a quantum state to differ from the Schrödinger equation.

This conclusion is unwarranted. It follows, not from the given assumption, but from the overcomplicated way that assumption is implemented and the kludges built on top of that. Here is how Hossenfelder introduces her central assumption:

What I am assuming here is then that in the to-be-found underlying theory, geometry carries the same information as the particles because they are the same. [...] Concretely, I will take this idea to imply that we have a fundamental quantum theory in which particles and their geometry are one and the same quantum state.

Taking this at face value, the quantum state of a universe containing gravitating matter is just a single ray in a Hilbert space. As cosmic time rolls on, that ray rotates. This unitary evolution of the state vector is the evolution both of the matter and of the geometry. There is, by assumption, no distinction between them. But Hossenfelder hacks one in! She says that the Hilbert space must factor into the tensor product of a Hilbert space for matter and a Hilbert space for geometry. And then she says that the only allowed states are tensor products of two copies of the same vector (up to a unitary that we could define away). If matter and geometry were truly the same, there would be no such factorization. We would not have to avoid generating entanglement between the two factors by breaking quantum mechanics, as Hossenfelder does, simply because there would not be two spaces to tango.

I am skeptical of this whole approach on multiple levels, but even granting the basic premise, it's a bad implementation of that premise. She doesn't have a model; she has a pathological "fix" to a problem of her own making.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 13 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I am still staying away from YouTube, so I am happily cut off from the bulk of her content. But when she teases a video with the phrase

People in Western countries are having fewer kids

I reserve the right to say "yikes".

Oh, and she has podcasted with sex pest Lawrence Krauss, multiple times ("What's New in Science With Sabine and Lawrence").

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

That passage of Hossenfelder's jumped out at me, too. It's a laughably bad take about the implications of Bell's theorem that ignores how just about every interpretation of quantum mechanics has responded to Bell-inequality violations, and it attempts to sanewash superdeterminism.

Not her first time doing that...

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 9 points 3 weeks ago

Also, the focus on geometry feels anachronistic; a century ago she could have proposed a geometric explanation for why nuclei stay bound together and completely overlooked gluons.

She wrote a whole book about how physicists have deluded themselves by pursuing mathematical "beauty", and now she's advocating "everything is geometry".

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 18 points 3 weeks ago (16 children)

Hey, remember Sabine Hossenfelder? The transphobe who makes YouTube videos? She published a physics paper! Well, OK, she posted a thing to the arXiv for the first time since January 2024. I read it, because I've been checking the quant-ph feed on a daily basis for years now, and reading anything else is even more depressing. It's vague, meandering glorp that tries to pretty up a worldview that amounts to renouncing explanation and saying everything happens because Amon-Ra wills it. Two features are worth commenting upon. The acknowledgments say,

I acknowledge help from ChatGPT 5 for literature research as well as checking this manuscript. I swear I actually wrote it myself.

"Tee hee, I shut off my higher brain functions" is a statement that should remain in the porn for those who have a fetish for that.

And what literature does Hossenfelder cite? Well, there's herself, of course, and Tim Palmer (one of those guys who did respectable work in his own field and then decided to kook out about quantum mechanics). And ... Eric Weinstein! The very special boy who dallied for a decade before writing a paper on his revolutionary theory and then left his equations in his other pants. Yes, Hossenfelder has gone from hosting a blog post that dismantled "Geometric Unity" to citing it as a perfectly ordinary theory.

If she's not taking Thielbux, she's missing an opportunity.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"Everyone who believes this lives in San Francisco" is the pure poetry of self-owns.

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 11 points 3 weeks ago

Translator's note: kaikaku means flan

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Tag your favorite name for a Star Wars background character. Mine is enodopmisch reticulum.

 

So, there I was, trying to remember the title of a book I had read bits of, and I thought to check a Wikipedia article that might have referred to it. And there, in "External links", was ... "Wikiversity hosts a discussion with the Bard chatbot on Quantum mechanics".

How much carbon did you have to burn, and how many Kenyan workers did you have to call the N-word, in order to get a garbled and confused "history" of science? (There's a lot wrong and even self-contradictory with what the stochastic parrot says, which isn't worth unweaving in detail; perhaps the worst part is that its statement of the uncertainty principle is a blurry JPEG of the average over all verbal statements of the uncertainty principle, most of which are wrong.) So, a mediocre but mostly unremarkable page gets supplemented with a "resource" that is actively harmful. Hooray.

Meanwhile, over in this discussion thread, we've been taking a look at the Wikipedia article Super-recursive algorithm. It's rambling and unclear, throwing together all sorts of things that somebody somewhere called an exotic kind of computation, while seemingly not grasping the basics of the ordinary theory the new thing is supposedly moving beyond.

So: What's the worst/weirdest Wikipedia article in your field of specialization?

 

The day just isn't complete without a tiresome retread of freeze peach rhetorical tropes. Oh, it's "important to engage with and understand" white supremacy. That's why we need to boost the voices of white supremacists! And give them money!

 

With the OpenAI clownshow, there's been renewed media attention on the xrisk/"AI safety"/doomer nonsense. Personally, I've had a fresh wave of reporters asking me naive questions (as well as some contacts from old hands who are on top of how to handle ultra-rich man-children with god complexes).

 

Flashback time:

One of the most important and beneficial trainings I ever underwent as a young writer was trying to script a comic. I had to cut down all of my dialogue to fit into speech bubbles. I was staring closely at each sentence and striking out any word I could.

"But then I paid for Twitter!"

 

AI doctors will revolutionize medicine! You'll go to a service hosted in Thailand that can't take credit cards, and pay in crypto, to get a correct diagnosis. Then another VISA-blocked AI will train you in following a script that will get a human doctor to give you the right diagnosis, without tipping that doctor off that you're following a script; so you can get the prescription the first AI told you to get.

Can't get mifepristone or puberty blockers? Just have a chatbot teach you how to cast Persuasion!

 

Yudkowsky writes,

How can Effective Altruism solve the meta-level problem where almost all of the talented executives and ops people were in 1950 and now they're dead and there's fewer and fewer surviving descendants of their heritage every year and no blog post I can figure out how to write could even come close to making more people being good executives?

Because what EA was really missing is collusion to hide the health effects of tobacco smoking.

 

Aella:

Maybe catcalling isn't that bad? Maybe the demonizing of catcalling is actually racist, since most men who catcall are black

Quarantine Goth Ms. Frizzle (@spookperson):

your skull is full of wet cat food

 

Steven Pinker tweets thusly:

My friend & Harvard colleague Howard Gardner, offers a thoughtful critique of my book Rationality -- but undermines his cause, as all skeptics of rationality must do, by using rationality to make it.

"My colleague and fellow esteemed gentleman of Harvard neglects to consider the premise that I am rubber and he is glue."

 

Geoffrey "primalpoly" Miller tweets thusly:

Imagine you're single & want to use a dating app to find a good mate.

What's one question you wish everyone would answer in their dating app profile?

PS in my experience, the question 'What's the heritability of IQ?' tends to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

In the far-off days of August 2022, Yudkowsky said of his brainchild,

If you think you can point to an unnecessary sentence within it, go ahead and try. Having a long story isn't the same fundamental kind of issue as having an extra sentence.

To which MarxBroshevik replied,

The first two sentences have a weird contradiction:

Every inch of wall space is covered by a bookcase. Each bookcase has six shelves, going almost to the ceiling.

So is it "every inch", or are the bookshelves going "almost" to the ceiling? Can't be both.

I've not read further than the first paragraph so there's probably other mistakes in the book too. There's kind of other 'mistakes' even in the first paragraph, not logical mistakes as such, just as an editor I would have... questions.

And I elaborated:

I'm not one to complain about the passive voice every time I see it. Like all matters of style, it's a choice that depends upon the tone the author desires, the point the author wishes to emphasize, even the way a character would speak. ("Oh, his throat was cut," Holmes concurred, "but not by his own hand.") Here, it contributes to a staid feeling. It emphasizes the walls and the shelves, not the books. This is all wrong for a story that is supposed to be about the pleasures of learning, a story whose main character can't walk past a bookstore without going in. Moreover, the instigating conceit of the fanfic is that their love of learning was nurtured, rather than neglected. Imagine that character, their family, their family home, and step into their library. What do you see?

Books — every wall, books to the ceiling.

Bam, done.

This is the living-room of the house occupied by the eminent Professor Michael Verres-Evans,

Calling a character "the eminent Professor" feels uncomfortably Dan Brown.

and his wife, Mrs. Petunia Evans-Verres, and their adopted son, Harry James Potter-Evans-Verres.

I hate the kid already.

And he said he wanted children, and that his first son would be named Dudley. And I thought to myself, what kind of parent names their child Dudley Dursley?

Congratulations, you've noticed the name in a children's book that was invented to sound stodgy and unpleasant. (In The Chocolate Factory of Rationality, a character asks "What kind of a name is 'Wonka' anyway?") And somehow you're trying to prove your cleverness and superiority over canon by mocking the name that was invented for children to mock. Of course, the Dursleys were also the start of Rowling using "physically unsightly by her standards" to indicate "morally evil", so joining in with that mockery feels ... It's aged badly, to be generous.

Also, is it just the people I know, or does having a name picked out for a child that far in advance seem a bit unusual? Is "Dudley" a name with history in his family — the father he honored but never really knew? His grandfather who died in the War? If you want to tell a grown-up story, where people aren't just named the way they are because those are names for children to laugh at, then you have to play by grown-up rules of characterization.

The whole stretch with Harry pointing out they can ask for a demonstration of magic is too long. Asking for proof is the obvious move, but it's presented as something only Harry is clever enough to think of, and as the end of a logic chain.

"Mum, your parents didn't have magic, did they?" [...] "Then no one in your family knew about magic when Lily got her letter. [...] If it's true, we can just get a Hogwarts professor here and see the magic for ourselves, and Dad will admit that it's true. And if not, then Mum will admit that it's false. That's what the experimental method is for, so that we don't have to resolve things just by arguing."

Jesus, this kid goes around with L's theme from Death Note playing in his head whenever he pours a bowl of breakfast crunchies.

Always Harry had been encouraged to study whatever caught his attention, bought all the books that caught his fancy, sponsored in whatever maths or science competitions he entered. He was given anything reasonable that he wanted, except, maybe, the slightest shred of respect.

Oh, sod off, you entitled little twit; the chip on your shoulder is bigger than you are. Your parents buy you college textbooks on physics instead of coloring books about rocketships, and you think you don't get respect? Because your adoptive father is incredulous about the existence of, let me check my notes here, literal magic? You know, the thing which would upend the body of known science, as you will yourself expound at great length.

"Mum," Harry said. "If you want to win this argument with Dad, look in chapter two of the first book of the Feynman Lectures on Physics.

Wesley Crusher would shove this kid into a locker.

view more: ‹ prev next ›