i would guess that people that deactivate js are fine not using google for search

why?

i struggle to see how this problem transfers to fake news regulation

transparency is precisely what can make regulations not be censorship, or I should hope so.

When a judge decides to convict someone of murder, we all know they might be wrong. The judge is not entitled to decide what objective reality is, he just decides how the judiciary system sees and treats the situation, as someone has to do it.

The same thing should be applied to fake news, which is sharing (dis)information with the false appearance of some verified news piece to influence people into making certain decisions.

Of course, there’s a big potential for censorship in how we treat fake news. So this treatment should follow clear objective criteria and be absolutely transparent.

who knows… but the us has softer means to pressure europe

Pointing that A is like B regarding the aspect X is often treated as a “comparison” between A and B, but it doesnt imply that A is as great, as important, or as bad as B. It doesnt imply that A is like B in any way other than in the aspect X.

Why not focus on the point that is being made instead of freaking out over the angles from which the analogy breaks down. Every analogy breaks down from some angle.

thats different from fake news, still

who is talking about thought crime? spreading fake news can be dangerous in a way that results in actual deaths.

people being offended by comparisons is something that puzzles me every time i see it.

One common trait between two things is enough to make an analogy. The differences between the objects being compared doesnt hinder the argument as it is based on the similarities alone.

to not piss off computer scientists and mathematicians with their dear word “algorithm”, you may want to narrow it down with the expression recommendation algorithms.

he folded to brazilian courts last year. but now, with trump in power, he may have more means to pressure back.

why dont they show ads in albania?

Never said AGI would be unable to.

Not my point… and you know it. My point is that even if we consider that proven theorems are known facts, we still dont know if hypercomputers are infeasible. We know, however, that i’ll never write python code that decides Validity because it is not (classically) decidable. But we have no theorems on the impossibility of hypercomputation.

Right, validity is semidecidable, just like the halting problem.

We might never know for certain that any natural law is true, we might never be certain that that oracle actually solves validity. But that doesnt prevent the oracle from working. My point is that its existence is possible, not that we will ever be able to trust it.

Besides, we dont know that the physical laws we work with today are true, but we nevetheless use them for practical purpuses all the time.

Turing machines can’t exist, either.

Oh no! You got me there!

Why do you need uncountable infinities for hypercomputers, though?. I see that Martin Davis criticism has to do with that approach, and I agree this approach seems silly. But, it doesnt seem to cover all potential fronts for hypercomputers. Im not talking about current approaches to quantum computing either. What if some yet unknown physical law makes arrangements of particles somehow solve the first order logic validity problem, which is also not in R? Doesnt involve uncountable infinity at all. Again, im not saying its possible, just that theres no purely logical proof of impossibility, thats all.

A hypercomputer has its own class of unsolvable problems, I agree. That doesnt mean that a hypercomputer cannot exist.

church-turing is a a thesis, not a logical theorem. You pointed me to a proof that the halting problem is unsolvable by a Turing Machine, not that hypercomputers are impossible.

The critic Martin Davis mentioned in wikipedia has an article criticizing a kind of attempt at showing the feasibility of hypercomputers. Thats fine. If there was a well-known logical proof of its unfeasibility, his task would be much simpler though. The purely logical argument hasnt been made as far as i know and as far as you were able to show.

The diagonalization argument you pointed me to is about the uncomputability of the halting problem. I know about it, but it just proves that no turing machine can solve the halting problem. Hypercomputers are supposed to NOT be turing machines, so theres no proof of the impossibility of hypercomputers to be found there.