[flagged]
[deleted]
AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
31–40 of 437 posts
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#32This paper presents a theoretical proof that AGI systems will structurally collapse under certain semantic conditions — not due to lack of compute, but because of how entropy behaves in heavy-tailed decision spaces. The idea is called IOpenER: Information Opens, Entropy Rises. It builds on Shannon’s information theory to show that in specific problem classes (those with α ≤ 1), adding information doesn’t reduce uncer…
Thanks for this - Looking forward to reading the full paper.
That said, the most obvious objection that comes to mind about the title is that … well, I feel that I’m generally intelligent, and therefore general intelligence of some sort is clearly not impossible.
Can you give a short précis as to how you are distinguishing humans and the “A” in artificial?
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#33So does the human brain transcend math, or are humans not generally intelligent?
First of all, math isn’t real any more than language isn’t real. It’s an entirely human construct, so it’s possible you cannot reach AGI using mathematical means, as math might not be able to fully express it. It’s similar to how language cannot fully describe what a color is , only vague approximations and measurements. If you wanted to create the color green, you cannot do it by describing various properties, you m…
As a somewhat colorblind person, I can tell you that the "actual green" is pretty much a lie :)
It's a deeply philosophical question what constitutes a subjective experience of "green" or whatever... but intelligence is a bit more tractable IHO.
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#34So does the human brain transcend math, or are humans not generally intelligent?
[deleted]
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#35So does the human brain transcend math, or are humans not generally intelligent?
> are humans not generally intelligent?
Have you not met the average person on the street? (/s)
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#36This has a single author; is not peer-reviewed; is not published in a journal; and was self-submitted both to PhilArchive and here on Hacker News.
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think that human intelligence is based on mathematics?
Because it's based on physics, which is based on mathematics. Alternately, even if we one day learn that physics is not reducible to mathematics, both humans and computers are still based on the same physics.
And the soul?
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don’t even know how LLMs work. But we do know the underlying mechanisms are governed by math because we have a theory of reality that governs things down to the atomic scale and humans and LLMs are made out of atoms. So because of this we know reality is governed by maths. We just can’t fully model the high level consequence of emergent patterns due to the sheer complexity of trillions of interacting atoms. So it’…
> We don’t even know how LLMs work Speak for yourself. LLMs are a feedforward algorithm inferring static weights to create a tokenized response string. We can compare that pretty trivially to the dynamic relationship of neurons and synapses in the human brain. It's not similar, case closed. That's the extent of serious discussion that can be had comparing LLMs to human thought, with apologies to Chomsky et. al. It's…
> Speak for yourself. LLMs are a feedforward algorithm inferring static weights to create a tokenized response string.
If we're OK with descriptions so lossy that they fit in a sentence, we also understand the human brain:
A electrochemical network with external inputs and some feedback loops, pumping ions around to trigger voltage cascades to create muscle contractions as outputs.
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#39Without reading the paper how the heck is agi mathematically impossible if humans are possible? Unless the paper is claiming humans are mathematically impossible? I’ll read the paper but the title comes off as out of touch with reality.
The title is clickbait. He more ends up saying that AGI is practically impossible today, given all our current paradigms of how we build computers, algorithms, and neural networks. There's an exponential explosion in how much computation time it requires to match the out-of-frame leaps and bounds that a human brain can make with just a few watts of power, and researchers have no clever ideas yet for emulating that trait.
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think that human intelligence is based on mathematics?
Because it's based on physics, which is based on mathematics. Alternately, even if we one day learn that physics is not reducible to mathematics, both humans and computers are still based on the same physics.
You're mistaking the thing for the tool we use to describe the thing.
Physics gives us a way to answer questions about nature, but it is not nature itself. It is also, so far (and probably forever), incomplete.
Math doesn't need to agree with nature, we can take it as far as we want, as long as it doesn't break its own rules. Physics uses it, but is not based on it.