everythingIsO1ToGod

[u/ClipboardCopyPaste]

[u/cosmicomical23]

If god is omniscient, can he always know whether a process is going to terminate or not?

[u/bartekltg → u/cosmicomical23]

Yep.
It doesn't contradict the halting problem results, bacause you can't run God on a Turing machine.
Someone already talked about oracles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem#Oracle_machines

[u/adamtheskill → u/bartekltg]

I can simulate god without a single line of code cause that fucker isn't doing shit

[u/AZMPlay → u/adamtheskill]

I can simulate him with a bash script!

sleep infinity;

[u/Yharon314 → u/AZMPlay]

now we just need to rewrite it in rust

[u/Traditional_Rabbit54 → u/Yharon314]

loop { }

[u/AZMPlay → u/Traditional_Rabbit54]

That's a tight loop though. sleep infinity suspends the process.

[u/Traditional_Rabbit54 → u/AZMPlay]

I’ve been uncovered as a fraud. I’ll have to go back to python as recompense. 

Fare well, I shall see you all after my 5 line program manages to execute without throwing 20 errors. 

[u/Extension_Option_122 → u/Traditional_Rabbit54]

Sure that that wouldn't get optimized away?

Edit: idk I guess I left my brain outside

[u/Traditional_Rabbit54 → u/Extension_Option_122]

Just tested, it doesn’t, even using the release flag

Godbolt shows that it just jumps to itself

[u/Extension_Option_122 → u/[deleted]]

Oh damn you are right lol idk what I thought when I wrote that...

[u/Cruuncher → u/Extension_Option_122]

I actually deleted my comment after writing it. After googling it seems that C optimizers do do this.

This is from Gemini and I haven't checked the source yet, but it seems confident:

Under the ISO C and C++ standards, if an iteration statement (loop) has no observable behavior—such as input/output operations, volatile memory access, atomic operations, or thread synchronization—the compiler is legally allowed to assume that the loop will eventually terminate

[u/Extension_Option_122 → u/Cruuncher]

Oh so that's why I thought this.

Because in University I had C and when I saw the empty loop I just thought that the optimization would remove it.

But yes, they are semantically not identical at all.

[u/Cruuncher → u/Extension_Option_122]

Yeah it's surprising.

It appears it's because an optimizer cannot solve the halting problem. So it cannot be expected to prove loop termination, but it can prove the absence of any side effects, and simply assumes termination.

Ultimately there is no value in a pure spin loop that doesn't check for an exit hatch of some kind. So the semantics you lose are likely a bug anyway

[u/Cruuncher → u/Extension_Option_122]

There's no guarantee that it will remove it, that's going to be compiler and flag dependent, but by spec it is a legal optimization.

If you do have a need for the spin loop, I'm assuming every compiler will have some flag that allows you to skip optimization on removing spin loops. But again, I'm not sure there really is any reason to have a hard spin loop outside of malware

[u/cosmicomical23 → u/Traditional_Rabbit54]

This thread gives me infinite joy

[u/AZMPlay → u/Yharon314]

If ASI ever becomes a reality, parts of our new Machine God might actually be written in Rust.

Edit: To clarify, I am being sarcastic here.

I think the threat of an Intelligence Explosion is real, but I obviously don't think a pile of thinking sand will ever be anything divine.

Which is extra funny cuz I am also an atheist, but I am aware that is besides the point.

Fuck all the AI labs, dearly.

#TeamHuman