🌊 retweeted
Idk if this is already a thing but there should be like "advanced reader" YA/kids books. Like high level vocabulary and more complex themes but with topics and styles that are interesting to kids
This is largely the result of some experiments with my implementation of Quine's main method where a machine can tell you faster than you can type whether you have a truth functional inconsistency on your hands.
My guess is that there is an argument which shows that when transforming to alternational normal form there is actually a rate at which inconsistent clauses show up that keeps the explosive distribution steps at bay as things get big.
The neat thing about my responses now is that people don't have to keep talking to me when they can just go to a machine and it will do what my impatience won't.
It is entirely unnatural from the perspective of logical methods where given a truth functional schema you wish to show it inconsistent without introducing some irrelevant theory of "truth values". You go strait to an ANF. See Quine's "Methods of Logic Fourth Edition".
I submit that there are simply bounds on the complexity of the reduction steps in alternational normal form. A naive implementation is a key part of my equally naive implantation of Quine's main method here:
The reason to focus on alternational normal form is that you can incrementally construct an equivalent for a compound from its components (e.g. from the components of a conditional to an anf of the conditional). You eliminate inconsistent clauses along the way.
I never quite got why people put the problem these ways. You can make an equivalent alternational normal form and by mechanical reduction it is inconsistent if and only if each of its clauses is. If it is not inconsistent then it is "satisfiable" or better "consistent".
An unexpected consequence of my peculiar behavior: most machines can do a better job of explaining why and how others might help me than I can (and they might be able to explain why I don't do better).
I find it hard to ask why there is something rather than nothing without noting that by asking it I have already concluded there is not nothing. The only way this could get tricky is that not nothing may not imply something e.g. in the vacuous case.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Leibniz argued that every possible thing has an inherent tendency toward existence, and the set of possibles containing the "greatest amount" is the one that beats out the others.
English translation: leibniz-translations.com/the…
🌊 retweeted
The Wayback Machine risks becoming collateral damage in the fight against AI, writes Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle in The Atlantic.
Blocking the Internet Archive won’t stop AI companies from scraping the web. But it can undermine a vital resource for journalists, researchers, and anyone seeking information that has disappeared or changed.
Read the article free 👉 theatlantic.com/technology/2…
#NotAllBots #ProtectTheWayback
ALT Dark green graphic with the quote "The Wayback Machine has become collateral damage in a fight between publishers and AI companies." Attributed to Brewster Kahle, Digital Librarian, Internet Archive. Internet Archive logo at bottom right.
Ridiculous in many ways. A lot of people still smoke. Why hope when you would never sit down and simply hope an investment pays off? How is this any different? Why write this?
This is ridiculous coming from someone who spent the past few decades contributing to this illiterate future. Explaining away your contributions by warning us of their deleterious effects is some kind of wonderful, but not a good kind.