How to fit any dataset with a single parameter

Post by naasking » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 11:53 PM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #22

air7 wrote: post #17

This reminds me of a joke idea I read somewhere: You can encode the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica using a single mark on a simple stick! Just encode the text as a ascii codes after the decimal dot of a zero. (0.656168.. etc). Then just mark that ratio of the sticks length and you're done...

I don't see this as a joke, but a radical and important point. Reality, in being geometrical, is infinitely informationally dense (with a discrete conception of information). This distinction between geometrical space and time, and discrete algorithmic computability is unbridgeable. And hence there is an extemely firm footing on which to reject: AI, brain scanning readers, teleporters, etc and most sci-fi computation…

Post by macrolocal » Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 11:59 PM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #22

air7 wrote: post #17

This reminds me of a joke idea I read somewhere: You can encode the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica using a single mark on a simple stick! Just encode the text as a ascii codes after the decimal dot of a zero. (0.656168.. etc). Then just mark that ratio of the sticks length and you're done...

I don't see this as a joke, but a radical and important point. Reality, in being geometrical, is infinitely informationally dense (with a discrete conception of information). This distinction between geometrical space and time, and discrete algorithmic computability is unbridgeable. And hence there is an extemely firm footing on which to reject: AI, brain scanning readers, teleporters, etc and most sci-fi computation…

Post by potatoman22 » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 12:08 AM UTC

mjburgess wrote: post #22

air7 wrote: post #17

This reminds me of a joke idea I read somewhere: You can encode the entire Encyclopaedia Britannica using a single mark on a simple stick! Just encode the text as a ascii codes after the decimal dot of a zero. (0.656168.. etc). Then just mark that ratio of the sticks length and you're done...

I don't see this as a joke, but a radical and important point. Reality, in being geometrical, is infinitely informationally dense (with a discrete conception of information). This distinction between geometrical space and time, and discrete algorithmic computability is unbridgeable. And hence there is an extemely firm footing on which to reject: AI, brain scanning readers, teleporters, etc and most sci-fi computation…

Post by NavinF » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 12:31 AM UTC

somewhereoutth wrote: post #86

mjburgess wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this as a joke, but a radical and important point. Reality, in being geometrical, is infinitely informationally dense (with a discrete conception of information). This distinction between geometrical space and time, and discrete algorithmic computability is unbridgeable. And hence there is an extemely firm footing on which to reject: AI, brain scanning readers, teleporters, etc and most sci-fi computation…

Indeed! I term it the 'Cardinality Barrier'. It is gratifying to know that the mathematician Georg Cantor demolished AI some hundred odd years before any engineer had thought seriously of it.

Post by NavinF » Thu, Sep 30, 2021, 1:33 AM UTC

mr_toad wrote: post #77

bflesch wrote: post #7

This sounds like it could explain many ML models ;)

It’s actually possible in theory for part of a neural net to simply encode the training data and use it to regurgitate responses. In practice, more efficient parts of the network should win in the end.