iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Obviously it’s an homage to the thinker. Could be that its resemblance to Turing is a coincidence. But the title is “Turing’s Mistake,” not some arbitrary robot thinker. OTOH the subtitle suggests it could be an unintelligent robot. It’s ambiguous.

100

Great question. “To use the best mathematical techniques and tools is obviously highly desirable. Everyone here would agree, however, that mathematics, being essentially tautological, cannot put into conceptual schemes something not there in the first place.” — R. W. Gerard at the Macy Conference.

Yeah that could be. The robot looks like Turing, and “Turing’s Mistake” makes it ambiguous.

FT @fucktheory.bsky.social · 25/08/2026

I’ll probably read this, but the cover is maddening. One can absolutely disagree with Turing—I do about some things. But the guy was absolutely not a dunce.

150

Reposted by Corey J. Maley

Imagine being talented and beautiful and rich and famous and still the most noteworthy thing about you is how good a person you are.

100268196331

Corey J. Maley @coreymaley.net · 21/08/2026

It seems to me that two things can be true: there was some degree of plagiarism; the extent of that plagiarism was criminally overblown and seeking it out at all was completely motivated by racism.

120

Corey J. Maley @coreymaley.net · 21/08/2026

Yeah Edouard. You’re so right-wing! 😂

Corey J. Maley @coreymaley.net · 21/08/2026

Eric Schwitzgebel's "AI and Consciousness: A Skeptical Overview" is free to download from Cambridge Elements through Aug. 26th. www.cambridge.org/core/element...

cambridge.org

AI and Consciousness

Cambridge Core - Philosophy: General Interest - AI and Consciousness

It has to suck to not be taken seriously by sexists; that's something I certainly don't have to deal with. And I also get that some people ask questions just to troll, or they're not acting in good faith. But that just isn't true of every single person.

Oh well. People have a right to believe that they cannot possibly be wrong, and if you question them, then you're obviously an ignorant jerk who is acting in bad faith and didn't read what they said they did. Because experts never make mistakes, or misread others' questions.

I don't know. That seemed condescending to me. Assuming I don't know what I'm talking about because of a typo, and I guess because I was talking about intractability not in terms of something being NP-hard, I was ignorant?

But because somewhere I said "NP" instead of "NP-hard", I was told to go do my homework because that's such a basic mistake it's too hard to explain. Because typos indicate ignorance.

120

"The so-called Integer Factorization problem (Shor, 1997) provides an example: No polynomial-time algorithm is known (nor believed) to exist for Integer Factorization, yet the problem is efficiently computable by a quantum computer."

100

So I asked, isn't this a counterexample to the idea that hardware doesn't matter for intractability, assuming that sub-exponential is intractable? This line from the paper made me think that the original claim the person made was just not correct, by their own lights:

100

Now this piece is right in saying that many people assume, incorrectly, that quantum computers can solve NP-hard problems. I know that too, and I never claimed it. Which is part of why I specifically mentioned that I get that Integer Factorization is in sub-exponential.

100

It notes that Integer Factorization is NOT NP-hard. If it were, it would be intractable. I know that. But it *is* in sub-exponential, which is another class that is generally taken to be intractable. Also, Integer Factorization is in BQP: polynomial time for quantum computers. As it notes.

100

So just because I'm annoyed, here's the relevant part of the piece I was told to go read. Which I did. And I agree with everything in it. I've actually read this whole paper before. I think it's a good one.

Maybe. I mentioned Shor’s algorithm in particular. Oh well.

000

One of my favorite contemporary philosophers!

040

This person assumed I didn’t know what I was talking about because I accidentally wrote “in NP” instead of “NP-hard,” and seemed bothered that I was questioning them at all, so I got blocked. In any case, I still don’t get what I’m getting so wrong here. If someone can tell me, I’d appreciate it.

100

Given that quantum algorithms can only run on quantum computers, this seems like a case where the kind of hardware changes what is tractable.

100

It’s not NP-hard, but in the sub-exponential complexity class. NP-hard problems are intractable, but so are those in the sub-exponential class. There is an algorithm (Shor’s algorithm) that factors integers in polynomial time (it’s in the BQP class , thus tractable), but it’s a quantum algorithm.

100

Someone blocked me for questioning the claim that “hardware doesn’t matter for tractability.” This person knows this area well, but also it seems like at least one case of a quantum algorithm is a counter example. Integer factorization on classical computers is intractable.

FWIW, the program as a whole is much more diverse than this session.

100

I’m sad to be missing this!

100

Does anyone want to read a draft of a short paper on why Marr’s levels aren’t actually levels? If so, I have one, and I’d appreciate any feedback!

230

Yes, typo. Not a misunderstanding. I, too, know a bit about computational complexity theory. You don’t need to be condescending.

000

Okay. I’m familiar with your views, which is why I asked the question in the first place. But if you’re not interested in discussing this, okay.

000

My original question was about integer factorization, which isn’t in NP, but I take to be intractable nevertheless.

100

I am, actually. Thats why i mentioned that I’m assuming sub-exponential is intractable, because in the article you don’t mention it as an example of an intractable class. I guess I’m not following what you’re trying to say.

100

I’m assuming that sub-exponential counts as intractable, obviously, which I suppose is debatable.

100

Right. So QC would be an example where hardware matters, because for integer factorization, there’s an algorithm (Shor) that’s tractable on a QC, but only intractable algorithms (sub-exponential at best) on classical computers.

100

Ah, I see. I missed the context: I didn’t realize you were talking about tractability in human cognition, specifically. Yeah, QC seems vanishingly unlikely to happen in the brain!

100

Could one just say that it’s because this is a quantum algorithm, and it’s not really about the hardware?

200

I missed whatever this person was talking about, but I’m curious what you think about, say, Shor’s algorithm as an example where hardware does matter. Classical factoring algorithms are intractable, but Shor’s is polynomial.

Corey J. Maley @coreymaley.net · 08/08/2026

Coincidentally, I presented at a conference on analog computing this summer in Frankfurt, Germany, co-organized by Bernd Ulmann. It turns out that this very computer is part of his personal collection!

000

Corey J. Maley @coreymaley.net · 08/08/2026

This photo is part of an online exhibition of several vintage computers. It's really cool. www.docubyte.com/projects/gui...

docubyte.com

Guide to Computing - docubyte

Corey J. Maley @coreymaley.net · 08/08/2026

I'm really excited that photographer James Ball is letting me use one of his beautiful photos of an analog computer as part of the cover for my book!

290

Corey J. Maley @coreymaley.net · 03/08/2026

I’m sad to have to miss this!