Viewing profile — ICBTheory

I'd say that conclusion is a manifestation of pragmatic wisdom. Anyway: I agree. The paper certainly doesn't argue that AI is useless, but that autonomy in high-stakes domains is m…

Author here. This paper is Part III of a trilogy investigating the limits of algorithmic cognition. Given the recent industry signals regarding "scaling plateaus" (e.g., Sutskever …

And finally 7. On “But humans are finite too—so why not replicable?” Yes. Humans are finite. But we’re not symbol-bound, and we don’t wait for the frame to stabilize before we act.…

6. On “This is just a critique of current models—not AGI itself” No. This isn’t about GPT-4, or Claude, or whatever model’s in vogue this quarter. Neither is it about architecture.…

5. On “Kolmogorov and Chaitin are misused” It’s a fair concern.Chaitin does get thrown around too easily — usually in discussions that don’t need him. But that’s not what’s happeni…

4. On “This is just the No Free Lunch Theorem again” Well … not quite. The No Free Lunch theorem says no optimizer is universally better across all functions. That’s an averaging r…

3. On “He redefines AGI to make his result inevitable” Sure. I redefined AGI. By using… …the definition from OpenAI, DeepMind, Anthropic, IBM, Goertzel, and Hutter. So unless those…

2. On “This is just philosophy with no testability” Yes, the paper is also philosophical. But not in the hand-wavy, incense-burning sense that’s being implied. It makes a formal cl…

1. On “The brain obeys physics, physics is computable—so AGI must be possible” This is the classical foundational syllogism of computationalism. In short: 1.The brain obeys the law…

Hey all, apologies for the delayed response. I was on a flight, then had guests, then had to make some rapid decisions involving actual real-world complexity (the kind that is not …

Hi folks. This is the third part in an ongoing theory I’ve been developing over the last few years called the Infinite Choice Barrier (ICB). The core idea is simple: General intell…

You’re misreading what I’m doing, and I suspect you’re also misdefining what a “proof” in this space needs to be. I’m not assuming humans exceed the Turing computable. I’m not usin…

You’re flipping the logic. I’m not assuming humans are beyond Turing-computable and then using that to prove that AGI can’t be. I’m saying: here is a provable formal limit for algo…

Yes, of course — if you define Ω² as “English + All of Science,” then congratulations, you have defined an unbounded oracle. But you’re just shifting the burden. No sysem starting …

The claim isn’t that humans maintain a consistent metascience. In fact, quite the opposite. Frame jumps happen precisely because human cognition is not locked into a consistent for…

No problem here is you proof - although a bit long: 1. THEOREM: Let a semantic frame be defined as Ω = (Σ, R), where Σ is a finite symbol set and R is a finite set of inference rul…

Wow, that is a great advice. Never heard of them - and they seem to fit perfectly into the whole concept THANK YOU! :-)

Very good point. I in fact had thought of describing the problem from a systems theoretical perspective as this is another way to combine different paths into a common principle Th…

1. I appreciate the comparison — but I’d argue this goes somewhat beyond the No Free Lunch theorem. NFL says: no optimizer performs best across all domains. But the core of this pa…

Oh no, I am not at all trying to find an explanation of why this is (qualia etc.). There is simply no necessity for that. It is interesting, but not part of the scientific problem …

Why? 1. Basically because physical laws obviously allow more than algorithmic cognition and problem solving. (And also: I am bound by thermodynamics as my mother in Law is, still i…

Just to make sure I understand: –Are we treating an arbitrary ontological assertion as if it’s a formal argument that needs to be heroically refuted? Or better: is that metaphysica…

Correct: Shannon entropy originally measures statistical uncertainty over a fixed symbol space. When the system is fed additional information/data, then entropy goes down, uncertai…

Thanks — and yes, Penrose’s argument is well known. But this isn’t that, as I’m not making a claim about consciousness or invoking quantum physics or microtubules (which, I agree, …