1.0 is "natural units". If your energy corresponds to nats, you should be using temperature 1.0. If your energy corresponds to bits, you should be using temperature ln(2) ~= 0.7. The optimization pressure is
max nats = max entropy + energy / temperature
Why might energy correspond to bits or nats? Imagine your goal is to play as many interesting games of chess as possible in a tournament. This implies you have to keep winning. If you look at the RL environment from the right perspective, you can turn it into optimizing bits or nats.
Solomonoff induction doesn’t concern itself with what is truth and reality. It just says which theory to prefer and how to determine so objectively when multiple are equally precise in making predictions of observations. It’s a formal description of Occam’s razor.
OPs argument is that reality is expressed by very complex equations and interactions; by definition this is outside of Solomonoff induction because it’s easy to imagine this accurate model by definition is the shortest algorithmic explanation, it’s just orders of magnitude more complex than our current approximations.
You should include the error correction code length in the description length. This means Newtonian mechanics was a much longer theory to describe Mercury's orbit than general relativity. It was only the shorter theory before they had the data showing a discrepancy. Which is the correct approach to describing your reality, because until you see a discrepancy, the extensional properties all follow the shorter rules.
I guess the argument from OP would look like: "Yes, now imagine we poke and extend our universe as far as we can. How much bigger do you think our final 'shortest description' would be? I imagine it may be orders of magnitude more complex."
Well, I can imagine a squared circle... doesn't mean the math checks out. I would reply that you do not have to imagine, you can go about looking at different mathematically possible universes in Tegmark IV and find the expected number of bits for the one you actually exist in. Which is ~0 bits more complex than the shortest description based on the data you currently have.
Also, note that Newtonian mechanics is not actually a very short theory for building a universe, because you have to instantiate every object in the universe. You actually get a lot more of the structure for free with general relativity (re: Wigner's classification of the particles). An observer in a presumed-Newtonian universe calling it a simple theory would be like saying, "I compressed Wikipedia to one byte, just by putting it all in the decompiler!"
You should look into Solomonoff induction. Nature and physics, absolutely, tautologically, have to follow the "shortest explanation is more likely principle".
Nope there are models that do exactly as described, completing or elaborating on line sketches. Google had (has?) at least a couple public demos. https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.03477
My perspective is it is impossible to cut through the three layers of bullshit between you and anyone who knows what they are talking about. The only way to do this is with brand-name qualifications, like "MIT graduate", not things that are actually impressive. This is also why you see senior developers saying, "the offers I'm getting are bigger and bigger," meanwhile skilled younger developers need to become a marketing professional just to get an interview.
Recruiters have utterly given up on being efficient in the market. I do not know why, but there is something very wrong given "spamming the same brand-name fish all the other recruiters are spamming" is their only strategy. My guess is there is a combination of bad (or an entire lack of) hygienic data filtering and a disconnect between compensation and terminal goals (hiring the best candidates).
"A handful of years"? This is like the trend in K–12 education of blaming all issues on the COVID-19 pandemic. No, education was in a visible decline for five years before COVID, which means it had probably been declining for another decade or two before that.
It was really just a rhetorical joke, but I wrote an app that is a system, based on a custom backend and native frontend.
I wrote a special native management app, and often use that, to implement dashboard functionality, like the kind of thing that the HN mods do.
Yeah, I could, for example, feed the logs into an LLM, and get fancy reports, but it’s a lot easier to simply hit the charts button in the navbar, and view interactive graphs, customized exactly for my workflow.
My experience was pretty contrary to points (1) and (4). My best teachers/professors directly conveyed information or skills. I found most students did the bare minimum to pass their classes (where "pass" = "not get their parents mad"). I tried to get a CS club started at my highschool and basically no one was interested, not even my friends.
Now, I did have a great coach in middle school who "created the conditions where willing students will learn", but I don't think she would have been a good teacher. She was great at organizing club meetings, finding the right materials to study, utilizing intraclub competition to motivate everyone, and getting her former students to come back and teach in highschool. I'm sure there was a lot more going on behind the scenes that she just knew how to do right, which made the club a whole lot better. But she wasn't a teacher. Closer to an administrator, but I think "coach" in the (m)athletic sense makes the most sense.
And, this is probably why my computer science club was not the success I envisioned. Yes, people are generally underachievers, but I also did not have the coaching skills to create the conditions where people wanted to overachieve.
Your question is easily resolved by looking up how much American schools are funded, compared to historical funding, other countries' funding, and their relative successes.
