People allergic to Stephen Wolfram and criticizing "Wolfram Physics" (e.g. Scott Aaronson) would better contribute to the conversation by reading Jonathan Gorard's publications, forming their opinion of the content of that published work, and expressing their non-ad-Wolfram criticisms. The broader "culture clash" problem is that Wolfram Physics is a metaphysical theory rather than a physics theory: it explains physics theories such as general relativity and quantum mechanics, rather than explaining a specific physical phenomenon. (Further physics theories can be advanced within Wolfram Physics.)
Rodney Brooks' predictions made at the beginning of 2018: https://rodneybrooks.com/predictions-scorecard-2022-january-01/
Moral anti-realists do not claim that people don't have preferences. Rather, they claim that there are no preference-assumption-free facts regarding preference system comparisons. Therefore moral anti realists will not seek such facts. Moral realists may seek such facts in order to improve/correct their preferences.
The implications of moral anti realism for action revolve around pursuing facts to feed into terminal preference updates.
"if anti-realism is true, it doesn't matter [to us] what we do" -- that's false. Whether something does matter to us is a fact independent of whether something ought to matter to us.
I advise using JAX instead of Tensorflow.
I recently read David Goggins "Can't Hurt Me". On one level it does glorify superhuman pain tolerance. But a constructive perspective on such attitudes is: they illustrate courage. Do not tolerate pain, laugh at it! Do not tense under cold shower, relax into it. Do not bear problems, solve them.
The fridge / the freezer!
Would you consider MuZero an advance in causal reasoning? Despite intentionally not representing causality / explicit model dynamics, it supports hypothetical reasoning via state tree search.
Do you think there's a chance of MuZero - AlphaStar crossover?
A comment to http://singinst.org/blog/2010/10/27/presentation-by-joshua-foxcarl-shulman-at-ecap-2010-super-intelligence-does-not-imply-benevolence/: Given as in the naive reinforcement learning framework (and that can approximate some more complex notions of value) that the value is in the environment, you don't want to be too hasty with the environment lest you destroy a higher value you haven't yet discovered! So you especially wouldn't replace high complexity systems like humans with low entropy systems like computer chips, without first analyzing them.
What if "system 2" is like a register machine with 4 pointer-storing registers / slots / tabs, 2 per hemisphere? (Peter Carruthers "The Centered Mind".) I don't reject information processing, but rather consider "working memory" to be a misnomer. The brain does not implement
memcpy.