Will Garner
@considersomething.bsky.social
artist. i draw animals, mostly. i'm posting occasional things, but since i have no followers that do not follow me on something else where i post everything, seems pointless. previously a fencing coach and a pixel artist.
it's cyberpunk, Charlie Brown (Charlie Brown bouncing around the Killing Floor out of control, tumbling and flipping, while a vat grown assassin just misses him, forever. His HUD flashing SNOOPY in the corner of his vision)
January 1, 2026 at 5:12 PM
it's cyberpunk, Charlie Brown (Charlie Brown bouncing around the Killing Floor out of control, tumbling and flipping, while a vat grown assassin just misses him, forever. His HUD flashing SNOOPY in the corner of his vision)
oh! this is a good one. The finite set of DVD movies contains a set of movies watching over your shoulder as you watch two hours of an infinite number of different movies - but enough of those recordings are identical enough that, discarding copies, there is a finite set of them.
December 27, 2025 at 3:18 PM
oh! this is a good one. The finite set of DVD movies contains a set of movies watching over your shoulder as you watch two hours of an infinite number of different movies - but enough of those recordings are identical enough that, discarding copies, there is a finite set of them.
that makes it a hash function - useful for reducing sentences of infinite length down to a set length, but guaranteed to produce identical duplicates which cannot be re-expanded.
December 27, 2025 at 2:24 PM
that makes it a hash function - useful for reducing sentences of infinite length down to a set length, but guaranteed to produce identical duplicates which cannot be re-expanded.
A third possible method of infinite sentence generation is fractal - recombining meaning into ever smaller units. But in digital representation, that it limited by the smallest unit of data - you can say a given 1 or 0 means multiple things, but in practice you'd be making identical copies.
December 27, 2025 at 2:24 PM
A third possible method of infinite sentence generation is fractal - recombining meaning into ever smaller units. But in digital representation, that it limited by the smallest unit of data - you can say a given 1 or 0 means multiple things, but in practice you'd be making identical copies.
later he gives an example of infinite sentences, by inserting a loop. but that extends the sentence infinitely. Godel proofs, which state "this is a valid sentence", "'this is a valid sentence' is a valid sentence", etc. both lose their infinite property when capped by length. (same with conjoining)
December 27, 2025 at 2:24 PM
later he gives an example of infinite sentences, by inserting a loop. but that extends the sentence infinitely. Godel proofs, which state "this is a valid sentence", "'this is a valid sentence' is a valid sentence", etc. both lose their infinite property when capped by length. (same with conjoining)
sure, happy to look. Chomsky... simply states that infinite sentences are possible, without discussing their length. From there, the rest is a discussion of how to differentiate grammatical and ungrammatical sentences.
December 27, 2025 at 2:24 PM
sure, happy to look. Chomsky... simply states that infinite sentences are possible, without discussing their length. From there, the rest is a discussion of how to differentiate grammatical and ungrammatical sentences.
i don't know what limits you thought about when stacking boxes. I thought about angle of repose vs. curvature of the earth, tensile problems of an orbital elevator. then I mentally tore another planet into crates and covered the surface of the earth until the diameter met the moon. Finite.
December 27, 2025 at 6:29 AM
i don't know what limits you thought about when stacking boxes. I thought about angle of repose vs. curvature of the earth, tensile problems of an orbital elevator. then I mentally tore another planet into crates and covered the surface of the earth until the diameter met the moon. Finite.
If you want to take one 2-hour movie, and interpret it into other languages? There will be plenty of other movies doing exactly that! but not an infinite amount of them.
December 27, 2025 at 5:58 AM
If you want to take one 2-hour movie, and interpret it into other languages? There will be plenty of other movies doing exactly that! but not an infinite amount of them.
I think you can? because a DVD is a device for storing 3.76e^10 bits, each of which can be 1 or 0, as one long number. There is nothing else there. All possible things which can go on that disc are represented by that finite set of combinations. It is all the 2 hour movies.
December 27, 2025 at 5:55 AM
I think you can? because a DVD is a device for storing 3.76e^10 bits, each of which can be 1 or 0, as one long number. There is nothing else there. All possible things which can go on that disc are represented by that finite set of combinations. It is all the 2 hour movies.
In particular, AI is pushing the idea of infinite potential when what it's doing is more like a million variations on pieces of a billion works that people have made. Seems "infinite", more than you can ever personally experience. but sad in comparison to true exploration of what's possible.
December 27, 2025 at 3:57 AM
In particular, AI is pushing the idea of infinite potential when what it's doing is more like a million variations on pieces of a billion works that people have made. Seems "infinite", more than you can ever personally experience. but sad in comparison to true exploration of what's possible.
To step back from arguing in circles to why I think this matters: there's a lot misinformation that relies on blurring the difference between things like "millions", "more than you'll ever count", "more than we can use in our lifetime", "uncountable", and "infinite".
December 27, 2025 at 3:57 AM
To step back from arguing in circles to why I think this matters: there's a lot misinformation that relies on blurring the difference between things like "millions", "more than you'll ever count", "more than we can use in our lifetime", "uncountable", and "infinite".
There are theoretical limits on the number of words that could exist. The logic proofs involve looping or indefinitely extending words - once you cap the length, you limit the language. In two hours, with an average phoneme length of 100ms, you get 72,000 phonemes. Incalculably vast, not infinite.
December 27, 2025 at 3:31 AM
There are theoretical limits on the number of words that could exist. The logic proofs involve looping or indefinitely extending words - once you cap the length, you limit the language. In two hours, with an average phoneme length of 100ms, you get 72,000 phonemes. Incalculably vast, not infinite.
I don't think you're getting me? A DVD stores a finite number of digits. The number of possible combinations of the values of those digits is finite. All those possible combinations, set end to end, are finite. And that makes every possible thing that could be on that DVD.
December 27, 2025 at 12:49 AM
I don't think you're getting me? A DVD stores a finite number of digits. The number of possible combinations of the values of those digits is finite. All those possible combinations, set end to end, are finite. And that makes every possible thing that could be on that DVD.
possible 2-hour movies *in a digital format*. Like on a DVD. number of pixels x number of colors x number of frames. same with audio encoding. It's a number. a vast, incomprehensible number, to be sure. but it's not even one of the smaller infinities.
December 27, 2025 at 12:24 AM
possible 2-hour movies *in a digital format*. Like on a DVD. number of pixels x number of colors x number of frames. same with audio encoding. It's a number. a vast, incomprehensible number, to be sure. but it's not even one of the smaller infinities.
to put it another way: The number of ALL possible 2 hour movies (in a digital format) is a finite number, which can be written as a single number. This includes a series in which you give advice to an AI about how they should respond to every possible situation to do the work of consciousness.
December 26, 2025 at 11:47 PM
to put it another way: The number of ALL possible 2 hour movies (in a digital format) is a finite number, which can be written as a single number. This includes a series in which you give advice to an AI about how they should respond to every possible situation to do the work of consciousness.
You probably could, given enough boxes? At what point, when you're standing on a platform of boxes, could you not build another, smaller platform of boxes? If it would require all the computers ever a million years to run a brain for a fraction of a second, then it would still run.
December 26, 2025 at 11:47 PM
You probably could, given enough boxes? At what point, when you're standing on a platform of boxes, could you not build another, smaller platform of boxes? If it would require all the computers ever a million years to run a brain for a fraction of a second, then it would still run.
To your point, even though it could be represented by a single program, the real complexity multiplier is when it is spun off into many different processes running on specialized pieces of hardware. which is what even our non-intelligent computers do.
December 26, 2025 at 9:01 PM
To your point, even though it could be represented by a single program, the real complexity multiplier is when it is spun off into many different processes running on specialized pieces of hardware. which is what even our non-intelligent computers do.
For a true general intelligence, I would expect that it would have something like the model we have, hooked up with a hundred other very different programs that do specific things, all hammered together in different ways for a long time. Doing one thing to a vast amount of data will never get there.
December 26, 2025 at 9:01 PM
For a true general intelligence, I would expect that it would have something like the model we have, hooked up with a hundred other very different programs that do specific things, all hammered together in different ways for a long time. Doing one thing to a vast amount of data will never get there.
yeah this article is exhausting nonsense. for me, the easiest test for this is the same as with the current "AI": is it trying to suggest that everything is the result of just one thing (especially if it's a thing you can't measure or experiment on)? Then it's probably pseudoscience.
December 26, 2025 at 9:01 PM
yeah this article is exhausting nonsense. for me, the easiest test for this is the same as with the current "AI": is it trying to suggest that everything is the result of just one thing (especially if it's a thing you can't measure or experiment on)? Then it's probably pseudoscience.
this is a missive attack, you're out here putting a stamp on things.
December 24, 2025 at 3:41 PM
this is a missive attack, you're out here putting a stamp on things.
it's already in the sourcebook (which must have inspired Barnyard Commandos. but Barnyard Commandos being fed back into CoD would feel bad)
December 17, 2025 at 5:25 AM
it's already in the sourcebook (which must have inspired Barnyard Commandos. but Barnyard Commandos being fed back into CoD would feel bad)
(i think there's another effect, with LED lights giving out specific light wavelengths the light receptor operates at - that blue is the specific blue Blue Receptors catch, no mixing required)
December 15, 2025 at 8:01 PM
(i think there's another effect, with LED lights giving out specific light wavelengths the light receptor operates at - that blue is the specific blue Blue Receptors catch, no mixing required)
What you see is the overlap of all the positions, so it looks like a stable blur. Blurring suggests random scattering, but that's not what's happening. If you had better vision, you'd see everything in detail, moving with the lights, which are flickering. There's no Stabilizer, only the Persister.
December 15, 2025 at 8:01 PM
What you see is the overlap of all the positions, so it looks like a stable blur. Blurring suggests random scattering, but that's not what's happening. If you had better vision, you'd see everything in detail, moving with the lights, which are flickering. There's no Stabilizer, only the Persister.
I think as an added note: the non-LED lights are not blurring - they're turning into irregular circles. Pretty sure they're all turning into the exact tracks the blue lights are moving around. From this, you can see that EVERYTHING is not exactly blurring - it's being moved on a circular track.
December 15, 2025 at 8:01 PM
I think as an added note: the non-LED lights are not blurring - they're turning into irregular circles. Pretty sure they're all turning into the exact tracks the blue lights are moving around. From this, you can see that EVERYTHING is not exactly blurring - it's being moved on a circular track.