Well I'm not sure there's any reason to think that we can tell, by looking at the mathematical idealizations, that the inductive parts will take about the same amount of work to create as the agentic parts, just because the formalisms seem to weigh similar amounts (and what does that seeming mean?). I'm not sure our intuitions about the weights of the components mean anything.

Wondering whether Integrated Information theory dictates that most anthropic moments have internet access

Hm, to clarify, by "consciously" I didn't mean experiential weight/anthropic measure, in this case I meant the behaviors generally associated with consciousness: metacognition, centralized narratization of thought, that stuff, which I seem to equate to deliberateness.. though maybe those things are only roughly equivalent in humans.

I'm not aware of a technical definition of "general inductor". I meant that it's an inductor that is quite general.

My opinion is that the St Petersberg game isn't paradoxical, it is very valuable, you should play it, it's counterintuitive to you because you can't actually imagine a quantity that comes in linear proportion to utility, you have never encountered one, none seems to exist.

Money, for instance, is definitely not linearly proportionate to utility, the more you get the less it's worth to you, and at its extremes, it can command no more resources than what the market offers, and if you get enough of it, the market will notice and it will all become valueless.

Every resource that exists has sub-linear utility returns in the extremes. 

(Hmm. What about land? Seems linear, to an extent)

found a 3d hangout platform, might be worth a look https://www.q42.nl/en/work/mibo-app

Regarding artificial sunlight: a technology that imitates it shockingly well in many ways, giving a sense of a window to a light source with infinite distance: https://www.coelux.com/en/about-us/index

but you sound exactly like the kind of person we want to attend

What, but I'm just a stray dog who makes video games about -... [remembers that I am making a game that centers around an esolang. Turns and looks at my BSc in formal languages and computability. Remembers all of the times a layperson has asked whether I know how to do Hacking and I answered "I'm not really interested in learning how to break things. I'm more interested in developing paradigms where things cannot be broken"]... oh.

uh. maybe.

(If you think the question is too underspecified to answer, you probably shouldn't try to post an answer in the answers section. There is a comments section.)

(I'll try to work this into the question description)

Are you asking about which kinds of attacks can't be stopped by improving software?

That would be an interesting thing to see discussed, sure.

Or are you asking about the theoretical limits of PL technology?

No, that might be interesting from the perspective of.. what kinds of engineering robustness will exist at the limits of the singularity (this topic is difficult to motivate, but I hope the reader would agree that we should generally try to make forecasts about cosmically large events even when the practical reasons to do it are not obvious. It seems a-priori unlikely that questions of, say, what kinds of political arrangements are possible in a post-organic galaxy sized civilization wont turn out to be important in some way, even if we can't immediately see how.)

But I'm mainly wondering from a practical perspective. Programming languages are generally tools of craft, they are for getting things done in reality, even many of the most theoretical languages aspire to that. I'm asking mainly from a perspective of...

Can we get the engineers of this imperiled civilization to take their responsibilities more seriously, generally? When it's helpful to be able to prove that something will work reliably before we put it into production, can we make that easy to do? Can any of the tooling design principles from that be generalized to the AGI alignment problem?

With regards to Coq, will those languages actually be used in reality, why or why not, should promote them, should we should fund their development?

I'm interested in different timescales

• the most security-promoting development processes that are currently in wide use.
• the most security-promoting development processes that are possible with recently developed technology.
• processes that could be developed now.
• processes that could come to exist 10 years away; processes that might exist 30-50 years from now.
• perhaps some impossibility theorems that may bind even the creatures of the singularity.

Yeah, this is actually one of the key takeaways of the arpa parc paper, leadership's role isn't so much to control or to make very many decisions, their job is to keep everyone lined up with a shared vision so that their actions and decisions fit together. Alignment is the thing that makes organizations run well, it's very important.