🎵 I'm a drop-shipping girl / in a shittified world / chat me up / bot me down / let's go party! 🎵
Having now refreshed my vague memories of the Feynman Lectures on Computation, I wouldn't recommend them as a first introduction to Turing machines and the halting problem. They're overburdened with detail: You can tell that Feynman was gleeful over figuring out how to make a Turing machine that tests parentheses for balance, but for many readers, it'll get in the way of the point. Comparing his discussion of the halting problem to the one in The Princeton Companion to Mathematics, for example, the latter is cleaner without losing anything that a first encounter would need. Feynman's lecture is more like a lecture from the second week of a course, missing the first week.
Comment removed for being weird (derogatory). I refrained just barely from hitting the "ban from community" button on the slim chance it was a badly misfired joke from a person who can otherwise behave themself, but I won't object if any other mod goes ahead with the banhammer.
Stay tuned for inaccurate, stochastic ls.
The thing LLMs can effectively replace is Google search (and other search engines).
This statement is true on zero known planets.
All according to k-AI-kaku!
Fucking blood diamonds that don't even cut glass.
Your first line is a confession that you are a bad person.
Regarding the last bullet point, there's always the argument from authority, i.e., appealing to a book with Feynman on the byline.
Now when mathematicians first addressed these problems, their interest was more general than the practical limits of computation; they were interested in principle with what could be proved. The question spawned a variety of approaches. Alan Turing, a British mathematician, equated the concept of "computability" with the ability of a certain type of machine to perform a computation. Church defined a system of logic and propositions and called it effective calculability. Kleene defined certain so-called "general recursive propositions" and worked in terms of these. Post had yet another approach (see the problem at the end of this chapter), and there were still other ways of examining the problem. All of these workers started off with a mathematical language of sorts and attempted to define a concept of "effective calculability" within that language. Thankfully for us, it can be shown that all of these apparently disparate approaches are equivalent, which means that we will only need to look at one of them.
From p. 54 of the Feynman Lectures on Computation, by Feynman, Hey and Allen (the latter two being the editors who turned the tape recordings of the lectures into a book several years after Feynman died). There's a pretty lengthy discussion of Turing machines in chapter 3 that does introduce the halting problem.
Enclosed please find one (1) complimentary ticket to the egress.
OK, I will reflect on why you think that comment was unfair.
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
Scott tweeteth thusly:
The Latin word for God is "Deus" - or as the Romans would have written it, "DEVS". The people who create programs, games, and simulated worlds are also called "devs". As time goes on, the two meanings will grow closer and closer.
Now that's some top-quality ierking off!
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."
I've noticed the occasional joke about how new computer technology, or LLMs specifically, have changed the speaker's perspective about older science fiction. E.g., there was one that went something like, "I was always confused about how Picard ordered his tea with the weird word order and exactly the same inflection every time, but now I recognize that's the tea order of a man who has learned precisely what is necessary to avoid the replicator delivering you an ocelot instead."
Notice how in TNG, everyone treats a PADD as a device that holds exactly one document and has to be physically handed to a person? The Doylist explanation is that it's a show from 1987 and everyone involved thought of them as notebooks. But the Watsonian explanation is that a device that holds exactly one document and zero distractions is the product of a society more psychologically healthy than ours....