Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

philarchive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 437 posts

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#151

Post by int_19h »

bigyabai wrote: post #91
ninetyninenine wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Hinton the person largely responsible about the AI revolution has this to say: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1lbbg0x/geoffr... https://youtu.be/qrvK_KuIeJk?t=284 In that video above George Hinton, directly says we don't understand how it works. So I don't speak just for myself. I speak for the person who ushered in the AI revolution, I speak for Experts in the field who know what they're talkin…

Hinton invented the neural network, which is not the same as the transformer architecture used in LLMs. Asking him about LLM architectures is like asking Henry Ford if he can build a car from a bunch of scrap metal; of course he can't. He might understand the engine or the bodywork, but it's not his job to know the whole process. Nor is it Hinton's. And that's okay - his humility isn't holding anyone back here. I'm n…

> If you remove all of the seeded RNG during inference (meaning; no random seeds, no temps, just weights/tokenizer), you can actually create an equation that deterministically gives you the same string of text every time.

That answers the "what", but not the "why" nor the "how exactly", with the latter being crucial to any claim that we understand how these things actually work.

If we actually did understand that, we wouldn't need to throw terabytes of data on them to train them - we'd just derive that very equation directly. Or, at the very least, we would know how to do so in principle. But we don't.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#152

Post by ben_w »

ICBTheory wrote: post #105
ben_w wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mathematical proof, as you describe it, sounds like the "No Free Lunch theorem". Humans also can't generalise to learning such things. As you note in 2.1, there is widespread disagreement on what "AGI" means. I note that you list several definitions which are essentially "is human equivalent". As humans can be reduced to physics, and physics can be expressed as a computer program, obviously any such definition ca…

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 paper doesnt talk about performance variability, it’s about structural inaccessibility. Specifically, that some semanti spaces (e.g., heavy-tailed, frame-unstable, undecidable contexts) can’t be computed or resolved by any algorithmic policy…

> the “weight-question”-Part is NOT a transcript from my actual life... thankfully - I did not transcribe a live ChatGPT consult while navigating emotional landmines with my (perfectly slim) wife, then submit it to PhilPapers and now here…

You have wildly missed my point.

You do not need to even have a spouse in order to try asking an AI the same question. I am not married, and I was still able to ask it ask it to respond to that question.

My point is that you clearly have not asked ChatGPT, because ChatGPT's behaviour clearly contradicts your claims about what AI would do.

So: what caused you to write to claim that AI would respond as you say they would respond, when the most well-known current generation model clearly doesn't?

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#153

Post by int_19h »

predrag_peter wrote: post #102

The difference between human and artificial intelligence (whatever "intelligence" is) is in the following: - AI is COMPLICATED (e.g. the World's Internet) yet it is REDUCIBLE and it is COUNTABLE (even if infinite) - Human intelligence is COMPLEX; it is IRREDUCIBLE (and it does not need to be large; 3 is a good number for a complex system) - AI has a chance of developing useful tools and methods and will certainly adv…

Do you have any proof or at least evidence for these assertions?

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#154

Post by bluefirebrand »

kevin42 wrote: post #95
ICBTheory wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure I can (and thanks for writing) Well, given the specific way you asked that question I confirm your self assertion - and am quite certain that your level of Artificiality converges to zero, which would make you a GI without A... - You stated to "feel" generally intelligent (A's don't feel and don't have an "I" that can feel) - Your nuanced, subtly ironic and self referential way of formulating clearly suggests th…

>but obviously, there seems to be more than that. I don't see how that's obvious. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but it seems like these arguments always come down to a qualia, or the insistence that humans have some sort of 'spark' that machines don't have, therefore: AGI is not possible since machines don't have it. I also don't understand the argument that "Your nuanced, subtly ironic and self referentia…

> What scientific evidence is there that we are anything other than a biochemical machine? And if we are a biochemical machine, how is that inherently capable of more than a silicon based machine is capable of

Iron and copper are both metals but only one can be hardened into steel

There is no reason why we should assume a silicon machine must have the same capabilities as a carbon machine

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#155

Post by int_19h »

sampl3username wrote: post #37
like_any_other wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So far, we have found no need for this hypothesis.

(Aside from "explaining" why AI couldn't ever possibly be "really intelligent" for those who find this notion existentially offensive.)

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#156

Post by catoc »

ICBTheory wrote: post #101
like_any_other wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me steal another users alternate phrasing: Since humans and computers are both bound by the same physical laws, why does your proof not apply to humans?

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 get disarranged by her mere presence while I always have to put laxatives in her wine to counter that) 2. human rationality is equally limited as algorithms. Neither an algorithm nor human logic can find itself a path from Newton to Einste…

“Imagine little Albert asking his physics teacher in 1880: "Sir - for how long do I have to stay at high speed in order to look as grown up as my elder brother?"”

Is that not the other way around? “…how long do I have to stay at high speed in order for my younger brother to look as grown up as myself?”

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#157

Post by dragonwriter »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #132
ICBTheory wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 that i tried to find an answer to. The proof (all three of them) holds without any explanatory effort concerning causalities around human frame-jumping etc. For this paper, It is absolutely sufficient to prove that a) this cannot be reached…

> this cannot be reached algorithmically > humans can (somehow) do this Is this not contradictory? Alternatively, in order to not be contradictory doesn't it require the assumption that humans are not "algorithmic"? But does that not then presuppose (as the above commenter brought up) that we are not a biochemical machine? Is a machine not inherently algorithmic in nature? Or at minimum presupposes that humans are mo…

> Alternatively, in order to not be contradictory doesn't it require the assumption that humans are not "algorithmic"? But does that not then presuppose (as the above commenter brought up) that we are not a biochemical machine? Is a machine not inherently algorithmic in nature?

No, computation is algorithmic, real machines are not necessarily (of course, AGI still can't be ruled out even if algorithmic intelligence is, only AGI that does not incorporate some component with noncomputable behavior.)

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#158

Post by dr_dshiv »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #154
kevin42 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but obviously, there seems to be more than that. I don't see how that's obvious. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but it seems like these arguments always come down to a qualia, or the insistence that humans have some sort of 'spark' that machines don't have, therefore: AGI is not possible since machines don't have it. I also don't understand the argument that "Your nuanced, subtly ironic and self referentia…

> What scientific evidence is there that we are anything other than a biochemical machine? And if we are a biochemical machine, how is that inherently capable of more than a silicon based machine is capable of Iron and copper are both metals but only one can be hardened into steel There is no reason why we should assume a silicon machine must have the same capabilities as a carbon machine

Yeah, but bronze also makes great swords… what’s the point here?

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#159

Post by somenameforme »

kevin42 wrote: post #95
ICBTheory wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure I can (and thanks for writing) Well, given the specific way you asked that question I confirm your self assertion - and am quite certain that your level of Artificiality converges to zero, which would make you a GI without A... - You stated to "feel" generally intelligent (A's don't feel and don't have an "I" that can feel) - Your nuanced, subtly ironic and self referential way of formulating clearly suggests th…

>but obviously, there seems to be more than that. I don't see how that's obvious. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but it seems like these arguments always come down to a qualia, or the insistence that humans have some sort of 'spark' that machines don't have, therefore: AGI is not possible since machines don't have it. I also don't understand the argument that "Your nuanced, subtly ironic and self referentia…

Consciousness is an issue. If you write a program to add 2+2, you probably do not believe some entity poofs into existence, perceives itself as independently adding 2+2, and then poofs out of existence. Yet somehow, the idea of an emergent consciousness is that if you instead get it to do 100 basic operations, or perhaps 2^100 then suddenly this becomes true? The reason one might believe this is not because it's logical or reasonable - or even supported in any way, but because people assume their own conclusion. In particular if one takes a physicalist view of the universe then consciousness must be a physical process and so it simply must emerge at some sufficient degree of complexity.

But if you don't simply assume physicalism then this logic falls flat. And the more we discover about the universe, the weirder things become. How insane would you sound not that long ago to suggest that time itself would move at different rates for different people at the same "time", just to maintain a perceived constancy of the speed of light? It's nonsense, but it's real. So I'm quite reluctant to assume my own conclusion on anything with regards to the nature of the universe. Even relatively 'simple' things like quantum entanglement are already posing very difficult issues for a physicalist view of the universe.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#160

Post by adastra22 »

a_cardboard_box wrote: post #117
ben_w wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mathematical proof, as you describe it, sounds like the "No Free Lunch theorem". Humans also can't generalise to learning such things. As you note in 2.1, there is widespread disagreement on what "AGI" means. I note that you list several definitions which are essentially "is human equivalent". As humans can be reduced to physics, and physics can be expressed as a computer program, obviously any such definition ca…

> As humans can be reduced to physics, and physics can be expressed as a computer program This is an assumption that many physicists disagree with. Roger Penrose, for example.

Penrose’s views on consciousness is largely considered quackery by other physicists.
Post reply on HN