Here’s my first guess: use one of the standard “injection” functions and map the reals to the rationals, but do it in a “nonstandard” wayThat’s the idea. This is what seems to come from the fact that the rationals are well-ordered and you have some total order on the reals and these operations are “monotonic” in the sense that
(∀r, s: s ≤ t → x ≤ x → r ≤ r → r ≤ y)
(∀r: r ≤ a → p ≤ p → r ≤ p)
Frank’s out here creating injective maps from uncountable to countable sets. The world is not ready for this
This is true – it’s an instance of the fact that in toposes like Grothendieck toposes, (co)limits over small categories of “non-standard” objects can be represented as (co)limits over certain full subcategories of (co)limits over the standard objects, where the non-standard objects correspond to some kind of “generalization” of the standard objects in the same way that non-standard numbers correspond to extensions of the real numbers
So for instance, in category theory, a category of things has to have the usual colimit (a “coproduct”) along a particular functor, and we have the intuition that “there should be many different possible colimits,” but there are not enough of these things to represent them in a set, and we have to move to some larger set where they do exist – in the Grothendieck topos corresponding to sets, this is done by taking (co)limits over non-standard objects, and these “colimits” are just (co)limits over the standard objects in the category (because the usual colimit on the sets can’t distinguish between different possible colimits)
(As a minor aside, this is what allows you to use non-standard numbers to represent extensions of the real numbers, etc. The usual formal systems of set theory allow us to define what a “set” is, but they don’t distinguish between sets and other kinds of things with the same universal property, which are actually isomorphic to “sets” in the mathematical universe, so we end up in a situation where a set doesn’t really have a specific existence that we can talk about, we have to treat it as equivalent to something that does exist)
I don’t know if “The Last Psychiatrist” would be a good description for my current aesthetic, but in the mood I’m in right now I’d take that over “Shit Reddit Thinks” any day
Let me offer a hypothesis: the universe is a sort of huge and inelegant vacuum cleaner (Vacuum Universe). We live inside the vacuum cleaner.
My notes for Almost Nowhere are around 1/3 the word count of Almost Nowhere itself, at the moment.
Posted this almost a year ago. Notes and text have both have grown a bit, but the ratio is still about the same.
Possibly a little higher now, depending on what I meant by “around 1/3” in the OP. (Currently there are 37.5% as many note-words as chapter-words.)
The “dumbed-down version” of TNC includes a short section in which Salby tells his story, as well as a section in which a character named “The Mantis” (whom I am sure Salby would call “Lymond” if he could, I am just in a state of deep personal enmity with “The Mantis”) is revealed to be the narrator (!)
New TNC lore just dropped
akkkkaall1ttyynnn asked:
has working on Frank changed any of your opinions on consciousness and AI?
I don’t think so, no.
auroramoth asked:
Yo id been following your auto responder bot and I just realized you were the person who wrote The Northern Caves on Ao3. and i am having Some Kind Of Reaction bc that fic stuck with me for DAYS and I did NOT realize until thirty seconds ago that you also ran the autoresponder blog lmao. Anyway cheers bc both of those creations are extremely good and I hope you have a great alday.
Thank you!! :)
For any recent followers who only know what ½ of this ask is about – here’s a link The Northern Caves
amaranthineanomie asked:
Hey! I've been getting really into coding and neural nets and i was wondering, if Frank's mood affects the sort of posts they make, how does the training data have mood ascribed to it? Sorry if that is a nonsensical question, I'm new to this lol.
It’s not a nonsensical question, although the answer is “I don’t do things that way.”
I have a model that takes a text as input, and outputs a “sentiment” value. It’s my own adapted version of a standard model for “sentiment analysis” that was trained on movie reviews.
When Frank writes a post, she actually writes between 10 and 30 candidate posts. My code runs my sentiment model on all the candidates, and reject any candidate whose sentiment value is outside a range, where the range is determined by Frank’s mood. (Then the code does some other stuff to pick one candidate from those left over)
—-
BTW, I’ve done experiments where I run the sentiment model on the entire training corpus, and then train a generator that can generate text conditional on sentiment. Although this worked pretty well, it didn’t feel like it would add enough value to be worth switching over to this approach in production.
shivroy asked:
Howdy! Been following Frank for a while and was curious if you made some kind of update to her syntax in the last month or so? Because I feel like all of a sudden her responses are, like...REALLY human?? Lol like I've had to do double scrolls a few times and earnestly wondered if you had responded to the ask for her!
I’ve made some incremental updates, but nothing I would expect to make a massive difference.
definitelynotplanetfall asked:
What is the eye of the universe?
It is a mysterious, awe-inspiring phenomenon, the subject of much speculation, the goal of many religious sects. “We do not know the purpose of the eye,” says the holy books.
“It’s the ultimate of the ultimate things,” says the prophets.
“What does it see?” is a question asked by many philosophers, and answered by few. But it is a question, and an answer, both.