131–140 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the form of an equation really just another sort of parameter?
Kolmogorov complexity[0] solves this loophole :) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
You can change measured complexity by altering the baseline assumptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you launching into a semantic argument about the word 'experience'? If so, it might help to state what essential properties alphago was missing that makes it 'not having an experience'. Otherwise this can quickly devolve into the common useless semantic discussion.
Just making sure no one is confused by common computationalist sophistry and how they attribute personal characteristics to computers and software. People can have and can create experiences, computers can only execute their programmed instructions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> By spelling out what computers are doing it becomes very obvious that there is nothing that can be aware of any experiences in computers as it is all simply a sequence of arithmetic operations. By spelling out what brains are doing it becomes very obvious that it's all simply a sequence of chemical reactions - and yet here we are, having experiences. Software will never have a human experience - but neither will a…
If an algorithmic process is an experience and a collection of experiences is intelligence then we get some pretty wild conclusions that I don't think most people would be attempting to claim as it'd make them sound like a lunatic (or a hippy). Consider the (algorithmic) mechanical process of screwing in a screw into a board. This screw has an "experience" and therefore intelligence. So... The screw is intelligent? V…
Intelligence appears in gradients, not a simple binary.
One parameter is enough: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5031956
That's like saying your entire hard drive is a single number.
> πfs: Never worry about data again!
> πfs is a revolutionary new file system that, instead of wasting space storing your data on your hard drive, stores your data in π! You'll never run out of space again - π holds every file that could possibly exist! They said 100% compression was impossible? You're looking at it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dark matter theory is falsifiable. Sure we can't see dark matter (it doesn't interact electromagnetically), but we can see its effects, and it has to follow the laws of physics as we understand them today. It is actually a satisfying theory with regard to the Occam razor. We don't have to change our laws of physics to explain the abnormal rotations of galaxy, we just need "stuff" that we can't see and yet interac…
'dark matter' is not a theory, it is the name of an observational problem. There are many theories to explain dark matter observations. MOND is not a competitor with 'dark matter', because MOND is a theory and it tries to explain some aspects (spiral galaxy rotation) of what is observed as the dark matter problem, which consists of many more observations. There is no competition here. There are other theories to expl…
Wikipedia has: "dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears not to interact with light or the electromagnetic field ... Although the astrophysics community generally accepts dark matter's existence, a minority of astrophysicists, intrigued by specific observations that are not well-explained by ordinary dark matter, argue for various modifications of the standard laws of general relativity. These include modified Newtonian dynamics, tensor–vector–scalar gravity, or entropic gravity."
Even its name, "dark matter", sort of strongly implies this. If someone were just trying to refer to the observations, rather than a specific explanation for the observations, wouldn't they just say "abnormal galaxy rotation curves" rather than "dark matter"?
I'm not saying Wikipedia is an end-all-be-all source on this, I'm just asking where you're getting this alternate definition. If it is somewhere reliable then perhaps the article needs to be rephrased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whether "just curve fitting" is enough to produce something "intelligent" is, IMO, currently unanswered Continual "curve fitting" to the real world can create intelligence. What is missing is not something inside the model. It's missing a mechanism to explore, search and expand its experience. Our current crop of LLMs ride on human experience, they have not largely participated in creating their own experiences. Th…
> Continual "curve fitting" to the real world can create intelligence. I'm going to need a citation on this bold claim. And by that I mean in the same vein as what Carl Sagan would say Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If an algorithmic process is an experience and a collection of experiences is intelligence then we get some pretty wild conclusions that I don't think most people would be attempting to claim as it'd make them sound like a lunatic (or a hippy). Consider the (algorithmic) mechanical process of screwing in a screw into a board. This screw has an "experience" and therefore intelligence. So... The screw is intelligent? V…
Continuing this reductio ad abusrdum, you might reach the fallactious conclusion, as some famous cranks in the past did, that intelligence is even found in plants, animals, women, and even the uncivilized savages of the new continent. Intelligence appears in gradients, not a simple binary.
Sure, I'm in no way countering such a notion and your snarky comment is a gross mischaracterization of my comment. So far off I have a difficult time believing it isn't intentional.
The "surprise" is not that plants, animals, or even women turn out to be intelligent under the definition of "collection of experiences" but that rocks have intelligence, atom, photons, and even more confusingly groups of photons, the set of all doors, the set of all doors that such that only one door per city exists in the same set. Or any number of meta collections. This is the controversial part, not women being intelligent. Plants are still up for debate, but I'm very open to a broad definition of intelligence.
But the issue is that I, and the general fields of cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology, and essentially everyone except for a subset of computer scientists, agree that intelligence is more than a collection of experiences (including if that collection has memory). In other words, it is more than a Turing Machine. What that more is, is debated but it is still generally agreed upon that intelligence requires abstraction, planning, online learning, and creativity. But all these themselves have complicated nuanced definitions that are much more than what the average person thinks they mean. But that's a classic issue where academics use the same words normal people do but have far more restrictions on their meaning. Which often confuses the average person when they are unwilling to accept this fact that words can have different meanings under different contexts (despite that we all do this quite frequently and such a concept exists in both our comments).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'dark matter' is not a theory, it is the name of an observational problem. There are many theories to explain dark matter observations. MOND is not a competitor with 'dark matter', because MOND is a theory and it tries to explain some aspects (spiral galaxy rotation) of what is observed as the dark matter problem, which consists of many more observations. There is no competition here. There are other theories to expl…
I've seen this opinion before, but can't seem to square it with any reliable source. Wikipedia has: "dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears not to interact with light or the electromagnetic field ... Although the astrophysics community generally accepts dark matter's existence, a minority of astrophysicists, intrigued by specific observations that are not well-explained by ordinary dark matter, arg…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the reason this isn't true is that by the hypothesis of dark matter, it follows gravity but not electromagnetism. as such it only fits distributions recoverable from evolving gravity. e.g. if we require a certain distribution today, it fixes the distribution at all other points in time, and we can use light speed delay to look into the past to verify whether the distributions have evolved according to gravity.
All observations of individual galaxies occur at a specific point in time. We can’t use light speed delay to see the evolution of individual galaxies only completely different galaxies at some other point in time. As such each galaxy gets its own value for the amount of dark matter. At minimum this is a ~200 billion parameter model, and more if you’re looking at smaller structures.