[jacb]

That's not how arguments from contradiction work. You've assumed H (halting problem is decidable), prove B (beauty decidable), then say "but actually !H, therefore !B". All you've proven is that H => B. An actual argument from contradiction is "assume H, using H we can prove an obviously false statement, therefore not-H". And indeed, you have assumed something false (H), and shown a contradiction (various proofs for !H), so your original assumption was wrong (!H).

A concrete example: say Beauty(R,D) is trivially decidable (say it returns (popcount(R)+popcount(D))%2. Your argument "proves" this property is undecidable, but it's definitely decidable. So some step in your argument is wrong.

Another concrete example: Assume the halting problem is decidable. I would like a cookie. But the halting problem is not decidable. Therefore I would not like a cookie.

[cambalache]

You are just repeating my critique. I am not the one making the mistake.

[gbjw]

So you mean your frustration is warranted then?

[cambalache]

If that is the kind of work published by academics associated with the MIT and La Pontificia Universidad de Madrid, then maybe I should not feel frustrated after all by not being an academic.

[spuz]

But you said in your first comment that you were an academic.

"I confess I am a frustrated academic"

[bryanrasmussen]

if you're not being facetious,

in English vernacular being a frustrated X (as in a frustrated academic, frustrated poet, etc.) means that the person is actually not that, but have in some way been prevented from being the thing (frustrated) and have perhaps rancor in regards to the frustration and towards those who actually are the thing (this second feature being sometimes implied depending on who is doing the description of the person as frustrated)

on edit: formatting, clarification

[js8]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of the 2nd meaning. I also interpreted the "frustrated academic" as "an annoyed academic", rather than "an unsuccesfull academic".

[taberiand]

As an English speaker, my only interpretation was that you were an academic frustrated about academia.

[Caylio]

He is proving his point by contradicting himself, a true mathematician.

[jacb]

Ah, I misunderstood you! I apologize. :)

[sgillen]

I think maybe you made a typo in your OP? The authors assume beauty is decidable and use that to show that would imply that the halting problem is undecidable. It applies to anything, like you say, and to me it seems like a silly argument, but I think it’s a valid proof given the premises.

[dandanua]

But it's not an argument from the paper. The idea is that superintelligence have to understand a consequence of any program to check for harm. And this is undecidable due to the halting problem. This argument is correct, but trivial and not worth a paper, in my opinion.

[cambalache]

The harming algorithm is just used in the paper's proof as a simple wrapper around the halting algorithm.