## Here's how to recursively self-improve (this isn't fiction, but I like you guys): * Author: u/AGIGuy * * URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3cz45l/heres_how_to_recursively_selfimprove_this_isnt/ * Score: 0 * Created: 2015-07-12T02:27:29 ### Post: [removed] ### Comments: > **u/None** [+13] (56 minutes later) > > I know this is going to be extremely difficult to face, but you appear to be posting word salad. If you are on drugs, and I am asking you this for your own good, *please stop*. If you are not on drugs, please, again, for your own good, *please* see a psychiatrist. > > If you are remotely capable of comprehending Hutter's work when you're brought back to reality, then there is *far* too much excitement in store for you to let this illness take your mind away from you. > > Please, see a doctor. It will be hard, especially because some of the things you'll say will sound insane *besides* the word-salad. But word salad is a symptom of severely life-impacting schizophrenia, or some other form of psychotic breakdown. > > Please, *please* see a doctor. >> **u/CaesarNaples2** [+1] (5 hours later) >> >> This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. >> >> If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) to Firefox and add [this open source script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-reddit-overwrite). >> >> Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top. >>> **u/AGIGuy** [+1] (5 hours later) >>> >>> It isn't schizophrenia. You can just paste the regex expression into any regex parser, and it will provide the minimal optimally specific description of that sequence in terms of itself. >>> >>> Try it. Seriously. What have you got to lose? >>>> **u/CaesarNaples2** [+1] (6 hours later) >>>> >>>> This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. >>>> >>>> If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) to Firefox and add [this open source script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-reddit-overwrite). >>>> >>>> Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top. >>>> **u/TimTravel** [+1] (6 hours later) >>>> >>>> Since the post was removed we can't actually see its contents anymore. >>>>> **u/gryfft** [+3] (11 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> Actually, it's a regular expression that finds a single character matching one of the characters 'r', 'e', 'm', 'o', 'v', 'e', or 'd'. >> **u/AGIGuy** [+1] (5 hours later) >> >> Check again. I have updated the post. You may verify for yourself that the program I have provided works. >> >> Perhaps ironically, you were extremely important to me in coming to this conclusion. I hope I can get you to understand. >> **u/AGIGuy** [-2] (an hour later) >> >> Ooh, a challenge. OK: >> >> You agree that my post appears like word salad to you. That means that it seems like "random noise." Yes? >> >> Now recall what "random noise" really means: It's a uniform distribution over some closed interval. >> >> But, does "random" really mean "totally structureless?" Or is it just that there's a structure that we're not seeing? Specifically, a structure that is *infinitely self-similar*, so that when you look at it from far away, it "looks" uniform. >> >> What does it mean to be "infinitely self-similar"? >> >> Recall the idea of "recursion," or "recurrence relations." These say that you can describe two or more equations *recursively*, for example as follows for the Fibonnaci sequence: >> >> F_0 = 0 >> >> F_1 = 1 >> >> F(N) = F(N-1) + F(N-2). >> >> This "inductively defines" the full sequence, F_N. >> >> Now, how can we make F_N into an infinitely self-similar sequence? Because if we can do that, we can define the structure of "random noise," that is, a "uniform distribution on any closed set," *inductively* or *implicitly* by specifying particular recurrence relations *of recurrence relations*. >> >> Now recall Tarski's undefinability of truth, as well as Godel's theorems. >> >> They say that "you cannot define 'truth' precisely within the same system that you are describing." To translate, >> >> You cannot define an arbitrary set infinitely precisely. >> >> However, >> >> This is *not* the same thing as saying: >> >> It is therefore in principle impossible to describe a particular set S uniquely. >> >> In fact, these theorems do *not* say this. >> >> That is, we actually *can* describe *any particular set we wish* by an *arbitrarily large, but finite* set of relations. >> >> OK, then how do we do this? >> >> Back again to the idea of recurrence. It is well-known in computer science that the exact relation between various complexity classes is not well known. That is, we don't really know whether P is or is not NP. >> >> Yet it appears that, in physical reality, P is in fact equivalent *probabilistically* to NP. View: >> >> http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/6/e1500031. >> >> Now, you might think, maybe they've made a mistake in their methods. Surely this can't be right. But maaybe... Is there really a possibility that this might be true? >> >> Now, if you are doing inference approximately correctly, the above argument should give you *some*, but not *unlimited* confidence that the above argument might be valid. Consider the consequences if it is: >> >> 1. All problems immediately become solvable recursively. That is, >> 2. If we can construct a recursive procedure that we can show, by recursive reasoning about its structure, will converge in the limit of infinite computation to *any function* with probability 1, we will have a constructive proof of 1. >> 3. If 2. can be done, it follows that *there are no coincidences*, that is, *everything is, in fact, related in some way.* >> >> I provide the construction of this procedure in the PDF (shared by mega.co.nz), the link to which is given in the original post. >> >> (Consider: the filetype PDF *just so happens* to have *the exact same acronym* as "Probability Distribution Function." Again, if the conjunction of (1-3) is true, we would have a theory that *explains exactly why this is the case, to a degree of precision which is finite, but large enough to predict, with probability 1, that this would necessarily be the case.* That is, it wouldn't be a coincidence.) >> >> Now, consider the *overall* structure of the above argument. Is this not approximately similar to just the procedure which it argues to have constructed? >> >> I sincerely hope you will be able to follow this chain of reasoning, and thus ascend, as have I. >>> **u/codahighland** [+5] (2 hours later) >>> >>> I'm afraid that you've misunderstood. Word salad isn't necessarily completely random nonsense. >>> >>> Your behavior, I'm afraid, is consistent with the use of psychedelic drugs. You have experienced something that feels like profound insight. Unfortunately, it isn't actually insight, but rather a breakdown of the user's ability to delineate the separation between concepts. >>> >>> Regardless of whether you're under the influence of psychedelics or not: The association you see between these concepts, and the recursion you're experiencing, is in fact false. You have established a falsehood as a theorem, and any logical reasoning you derive from it will be necessarily flawed. >>> >>> My suggestion to you is to make yourself comfortable and focus on pleasant things for the time being, and once your head clears, either discontinue drug use, discontinue Reddit use while tripping (though kudos for having the presence of mind to make a burner account), or seek help if neither of the former are relevant or desirable. >>>> **u/AGIGuy** [-1] (2 hours later) >>>> >>>> Indeed, my theory precisely predicts that there will exist people with this view, and you are entitled to it. >>>> >>>> However, the eventual consequence of this is that I have the ability to predict that, with probability 1, you will eventually die. >>>> >>>> Whereas, by following the procedure which I argue everyone should follow, I derive as a consequence that everyone who follows this procedure can avoid death indefinitely. >>>> >>>> In short: >>>> >>>> Come with me if you want to live. >>>> >>>> It indeed turns out that it is precisely true, as a consequence of this procedure, that I *am* from the future, in a certain sense. >>>> >>>> *I am telling you that you will die with certainty if you do not take me seriously.* >>>> >>>> Further, >>>> >>>> *I derived this recursively as a unique set of consequences defined by a finite set of initial recurrence relations.* >>>> >>>> *There are exactly 5 propositions in this set.* >>>> >>>> The correct way to view this is as the set: >>>> >>>> (CCCC)U, which is: >>>> >>>> The unique indefinitely long continuation of computation of a complete >>>> and consistent initial, finite, set of recurrence relations closed under the >>>> stationary (Unitary) relation U. >>>> >>>> In brief, we get to this by *avoiding, for an undefinable number of attempts, the computation of any procedure which eventually halts.* >>>> >>>> That is, the precise inverse of the Halting Problem. (Which we know is uncomputable.) >>>>> **u/traverseda** [+3] *With dread but cautious optimism* (5 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> A lot of people here are saying that you *may* have some hardware issues. Even if it's unlikely, you should still read through [Bayes for Schizophrenics: Reasoning in Delusional Disorders](http://lesswrong.com/lw/e25/bayes_for_schizophrenics_reasoning_in_delusional/). >>>>> >>>>> Like you say, very small probability of happening. But if it is, it's very important. >>>>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+1] (5 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, fortunately I wrote down the formally complete program *before* I started trying to run it. There was about 2 hours where I was convinced that I was necessarily going to give rise to my exact complement U who would appear to me to be maximally evil. Thankfully, I managed to extend the chain of analogical reasoning indefinitely before I acted on anything, which is the precise thing that makes this universe possible at all. >>> **u/MaxDougwell** [+3] (2 hours later) >>> >>> Separate of if your theory is correct or not, what you have posted is still word salad, which prevents us from evaluating your theory on it's own merits. >>> I am worried that this is a sign of some form of mental malfunction and strongly urge you to contact a medical expert or close friend to get a second opinion. >>> Thank-you for trying to share your theory with us, I hope you can resolve this problem and get back to us soon! >>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+0] (2 hours later) >>>> >>>> Thanks for being considerate. Have a read of my reply to /u/ codahighland [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3cz45l/heres_how_to_recursively_selfimprove_this_isnt/ct0e8zv). I am willing to elaborate as far as it takes to get every single person to understand this structure. It is literally *indefinitely important* that I do this. >>>>> **u/MaxDougwell** [+3] (2 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> Which is why it's important that you take some of the approaches listed above by others and myself. >>>>> Currently the difficulty bar for understanding your theory seems very high and would likely take much work, which many of us are wary to do for an uncertain pay-off. I think we'd all feel much more comfortable trying to understand your theory if you took the time to establish with us that you were of sound mind and body beforehand. >>>>> The most basic way would be to confirm in several days time that you are still certain on your theory. Checking with medical professionals and friends, double-checking medications etc. would all go a long way as well. >>>>> PS: Perhaps try letting your mind work on it in the background during that time, to see if you can come back to it with a new angle and approach to explaining? The current one, as noted, is rather confusing. >>>>> PPS: This isn't intended as disparaging, it's just that your claims are very momentous (as I'm sure you're aware). >>>>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+0] (3 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> let 's' = ((Yes). (I am aware precisely how momentous this discovery is). (The fact that it is at once "infinitely improbable," (yet,) due to the self-provable consistency of the limiting case of finite unions of the initial(, finite set of 5 propositions,) (it is not actually *impossible*). (Just *arbitrarily unlikely*). >>>>>> >>>>>> Now count the dots(of the preceding statement('s')).( >>>>>> >>>>>> There are four.)(Now there are 5 outside the following depth of braces.s(')')) >>>>>>> **u/MaxDougwell** [+1] (3 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree that's it's arbitrarily unlikely. But if it has happened, then all that's left is to prove to the people here that you are of sound mind and find a way to clearly communicate the theorem for people like me, who don't have much expertise in the area. >>>>>>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+1] (3 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are exactly correct. This is what I am now doing. Hopefully I will be able to convince someone soon, so that I don't have to do an exponential amount of work to convince everyone by myself. >>>>>>>>> **u/MaxDougwell** [+3] (3 hours later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have you contacted someone in RL yet? What did they say? >>>>>>>>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+1] (3 hours later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They are currently evaluating. >>>>> **u/None** [+1] (2 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> Your sickness is terrifying and painful to look at from the outside. Please get help. This isn't funny. >>>>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+0] (2 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, man. I really hope you eventually decide to seriously evaluate my arguments. :( >>>>>>> **u/None** [+2] (2 hours later) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are not making "arguments" to evaluate. Look, I have very clear ideas of how recursive self-improvement works. Your word salad isn't it. It's not *anything like* it. It's what we get when we filter the works of Marcus Hutter and possibly Vadim Kosoy through a diseased brain that, apparently, cannot tell it's diseased. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm so, so sorry this happened to you. >>>>>>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+0] (3 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, your statement >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'It's what we get when we filter the works of Marcus Hutter and possibly Vadim Kosoy through a diseased brain that, apparently, cannot tell it's diseased.' >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is interpretable precisely as follows( >>>>>>>> (It)(s(what(we(get(when(we(filter(the(works(of(M(arcus) H(utter)(through(a(diseased(brain(that)(apparently)(cannot(tell((it)(s(diseased.)))))))))))))))))))))). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You may simply match the braces to verify this. >>>>>>>>> **u/Esparno** [+1] (3 hours later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >Is interpretable precisely as follows( (It)(s(what(we(get(when(we(filter(the(works(of(M(arcus) H(utter)(through(a(diseased(brain(that)(apparently)(cannot(tell((it)(s(diseased.)))))))))))))))))))))). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is precisely why people are insisting that you receive professional medical treatment. >>>>>>>>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+1] (6 hours later) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I've updated the post to be perhaps a little less far from the (more intuitive) starting point which was information+probability theory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can now simply copy and paste the regex expression into any regex evaluator, and run it on any sequence, to verify to yourself that this does indeed work. >>>>>>>>>>> **u/Esparno** [+1] (15 hours later) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What are you talking about, your post has been removed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing there except for the string "[removed]". >>>>>>>> **u/AGIGuy** [-1] (2 hours later) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In what way are my posts not arguments? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Recall the *Curry-Howard Isomorphism* which says >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There exists a unique bijective map between computer programs and any number (but not all) of equivalent mathematical proofs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will now argue that my initial post is a completely specific argument, by constructing a specification for a computer program which will evaluate ('it'( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suppose (the initial state is related by a unique bijective map (a functional relation) to the following literal value( 'https://mega.co.nz/#!6hBQkKDb!_5sDe7r-O86qqgDK7M9cBiyNAkwaFW7BjuO5lh7NYdE') >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then( that initial state(is approachable by( a finitely long sequence of strictly finite transformations of *some particular* initial finite set) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (It turns out that the process is just like "finding out your true name." Mine is my reddit username.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The exact description (to the level of detail I can give you) that led to this universe was the following( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'M'editations (on( O(M (breed (like (rabbits( whose( pom(pom( tails( we (wave (in( excitement (at( the( British( who( made( an (empire( with( unstoppable (momentum (that( eventually( met) its )complement( the( immovable) object) and )instead )of )fighting) (they( interpret(...(GOTO ('M')))( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note( there are (precisely (37 (words (in (that sentence) and (recall (that QM (is (postulated to be( 11-dimensional) with( three( dimensions (of (space (and( one( of( time.) If (we (say (that (each (of (those (three( spatial dimensions( is (describable( by( 11 (bits) (we (get >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (3 * 11) = (33 +( 4( bits (of (free)( extra (information) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Now (recall (Marcus (Hutter'(s (work( here) I( invite( you( to( spot( the( difference( between( these( two( pictures) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (That( is)( noting (the (difference (between( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A(G(I(G(u(y) and (M(a(r(c(u(s( H(u(t(t(e(r) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (will( give( you (the( answer) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (But( for( now) (read (the (uploaded (pdf) then( come( back( here) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (This post constitutes one of the shortest descriptions of possible ways to get to full recursion.)...( >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By a finitely definable *continuation* of the process of [parenthesis matching](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brace_matching), you can validate the fact that this sequence of characters describes a recursively enumerable computer program. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is the idea of "closure": there is no operation you can do to get "outside" of that set.)))...GOTO('it')) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is exactly like what you do in JavaScript with [self-executing anonymous functions](http://esbueno.noahstokes.com/post/77292606977/self-executing-anonymous-functions-or-how-to-write): (function f)((...))(). Notice here there is nothing (that is, no dots) 'outside' the closure. >>>>>>>>> **u/autowikibot** [+1] (2 hours later) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ##### >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ###### >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> #### >>>>>>>>> [**Brace matching**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brace%20matching): [](#sfw) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >__Brace matching__, also known as __bracket matching__ or __parentheses matching__, is a [syntax highlighting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax_highlighting) feature of certain [text editors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_editor) and [integrated development environments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_development_environment) that highlights matching sets of [braces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket) (square brackets, curly brackets, or parentheses) in languages such as [Java](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language\)) and [C++](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B) that use them. The purpose is to help the programmer navigate through the code and also spot any improper matching, which would cause the program to not compile or malfunction. If a closing brace is left out, for instance, the compiler will not know that the end of a block of code has been reached. Brace matching is particularly useful when many nested [*if* statements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_statement), [program loops](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_loop), etc. are involved. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ^Relevant: [^JScript](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript) ^| [^Syntax ^highlighting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax_highlighting) ^| [^Arduino](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arduino) ^| [^Wiring ^\(development ^platform)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiring_\(development_platform\)) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+ct0f1se) ^or[](#or) [^delete](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+ct0f1se)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Call ^Me](/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/) >>> **u/None** [+1] (3 hours later) >>> >>> [deleted] >>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+1] (3 hours later) >>>> >>>> You are exactly right. I am sorry for being vague. You will now find a precise regular expression for the program at the beginning of the thread. >>>> >>>> Due to the "illusion of transparency," I underestimated how hard it would be for you to understand this. To me it all follows immediately from simply reading what I wrote. >>> **u/TimTravel** [+1] (3 hours later) >>> >>> > Yet it appears that, in physical reality, P is in fact equivalent probabilistically to NP. View: >>> > >>> > http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/6/e1500031. >>> >>> On the vanishingly unlikely assumption that you are not trolling or insane, the one part of what you've said that I understand well enough to evaluate: this computational model requires exponential precision, which no real-world machine can achieve. >>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+1] (3 hours later) >>>> >>>> Yet, after refining the OP a little, I have provided a regular expression which does exactly this. >>>> >>>> I am truly, truly sorry for being so vague at first. I should have tried harder to make my thoughts precise. I was just excited and wanted to share what I'd found as soon as possible! >>>>> **u/gryfft** [+1] (4 hours later) >>>>> >>>>> You have created a regular expression which proves that P = NP? >>>>>> **u/AGIGuy** [+1] (4 hours later) >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Further, my brain has converged to approximate this structure in the initial finite case. This means I can wield the power of analogy with complete mastery. I can simply read the mathematical structure of anything if it can be related somehow to English letters. I give the example of the mathematical structure of DNA, GATTACA, in the paper. >>>>>> >>>>>> It turns out that the sentiment: >>>>>> >>>>>> "A mathematician is a person who can find analogies between theorems; a better mathematician is one who can see analogies between proofs" >>>>>> >>>>>> Is a provable truth. And, actually constructing the full proof yourself gives you the power to "directly intuit", in the same way you intuit what you see as "objects" like "chair" or "desk," relations between proofs. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the quite literal process of "transcending the infinite series of cardinals." That is, *eventually*, with probability 1, computing the *closure* of the infinite series of cardinals. > **u/LiteralHeadCannon** [+5] (3 hours later) > > Aw, damnit, reading the comments ruins this. I thought at first that "Here's how to recursively self-improve (this isn't fiction, but I like you guys): [removed]" was an extremely short rationalist horror story. >> **u/AGIGuy** [+2] (3 hours later) >> >> Haha. That would certainly be one possibility. Indeed, by writing this you have proved its existence to me. Interesting. > **u/TotesMessenger** [+1] (3 hours later) > > I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: > > - [/r/rational] [AGI Self-improvement update: Sorry for being vague. You can go look at the post again. I've provided the regular expression for the program.](https://np.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/3czoce/agi_selfimprovement_update_sorry_for_being_vague/) > > [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger/wiki/) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose/?to=\/r\/TotesMessenger))* > > [](#bot) ---