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

161–170 of 437 posts

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#161

Post by jemmyw »

andoando wrote: post #120
jemmyw wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a great deal of space between effectively human and god machine. Effectively human meaning it takes 20 years to train it and then it's good at one thing and ok at some other things, if you're lucky. We expect more from LLMs right now, like being able to have very broad knowledge and be able to ingest vastly more context than a human can every time they're used. So we probably don't just think of or want a hum…

It doesn't take 20 years for humans to train new tasks. Perhaps to master very complicated tasks, but there is many tasks you can certainly learn to do in a short amount of time. For example, "Take this hammer, and put nails in top 4 corners of this box, turn it around, do the same". You can master that relatively easy. An AGI ought to be able to practically all such tasks. In any case, general intelligence merely me…

It takes about 10 years to train a human to do anything useful after creation.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#162

Post by [deleted] »

const_cast wrote: post #115
jemmyw wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a great deal of space between effectively human and god machine. Effectively human meaning it takes 20 years to train it and then it's good at one thing and ok at some other things, if you're lucky. We expect more from LLMs right now, like being able to have very broad knowledge and be able to ingest vastly more context than a human can every time they're used. So we probably don't just think of or want a hum…

The measure of human intelligence is never what humans are good at, but rather the capabilities of humans to figure out stuff they haven't before. Meaning, we can create and build new pathways inside our brains to perform and optimize tasks we have not done before. Practicing, then, reinforces these pathways. In a sense we do what we wish LLMs could - we use our intelligence to train ourselves. It's a long (ish) proc…

[deleted]

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#163

Post by jemmyw »

const_cast wrote: post #115
jemmyw wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a great deal of space between effectively human and god machine. Effectively human meaning it takes 20 years to train it and then it's good at one thing and ok at some other things, if you're lucky. We expect more from LLMs right now, like being able to have very broad knowledge and be able to ingest vastly more context than a human can every time they're used. So we probably don't just think of or want a hum…

The measure of human intelligence is never what humans are good at, but rather the capabilities of humans to figure out stuff they haven't before. Meaning, we can create and build new pathways inside our brains to perform and optimize tasks we have not done before. Practicing, then, reinforces these pathways. In a sense we do what we wish LLMs could - we use our intelligence to train ourselves. It's a long (ish) proc…

> For example, you may be shocked to know that the human brain has no pathways for reading, as opposed to spoken language.

I'm not shocked at all.

> I could take a random human right now and drop them somewhere they've never been before, and they will figure it out.

Yes, well not really. You could drop them anywhere in the human world, in their body. And even then, if you dropped me into a warehouse in China I'd have no idea what to do, I'd be culturally lost and unable to understand the language. And I'd want to go home. So yes you could drop in a human but they wouldn't then just perform work like an automonon. You couldn't drop their mind into a non human body and expect anything interesting to happen, and you certainly couldn't drop them anywhere inhospitable. Nearer to your example, you couldn't drop a football player into a maths convention and a maths professor into a football game and expect good results. The point of an AI is to be useful. I think AGI is very far away and maybe not even possible, whereas specific AIs are already abound.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#165

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

marcosdumay wrote: post #122
ICBTheory wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 metaphysical setup an argument? If that’s the game, fine. Here we go: – The claim that one can build a true, perfectly detailed, exact map of reality is… well... ambitious. It sits remarkably far from anything resembling science , since it’s convenien…

> Are we treating an arbitrary ontological assertion as if it’s a formal argument that needs to be heroically refuted? If you are claiming that human intelligence is not "general", you'd better put a huge disclaimer on your text. You are free to redefine words to mean whatever you want, but if you use something so different from the way the entire world uses it, the onus is on you to make it very clear. And the alter…

I don't think that's a redefinition. "general" in common usage refers to something that spans all subtypes. For humans to be generally intelligent there would have to be no type of intelligence that they don't exhibit, that's a bold claim.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#166

Post by kolinko »

dragonwriter wrote: post #157
fc417fc802 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

Using computation/algorithmic methods we can simulate nonalgorithmic systems. So the world within a computer program can behave in a nonalgorithmic way.

Also, one might argue that universe/laws of physics are computational.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#167

Post by holografix »

Action or agency in the face of omniscience is impossible because information never stops being added.

How can you arrive at your destination if the distance keeps increasing?

We are intelligent because at some point we discard or are incapable and unwilling to get more information.

Similar to the bird who makes a nest on a tree marked for felling, an intelligent system will make decisions and take action based on a threshold of information quantity.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#168

Post by stouset »

holografix wrote: post #167

Action or agency in the face of omniscience is impossible because information never stops being added. How can you arrive at your destination if the distance keeps increasing? We are intelligent because at some point we discard or are incapable and unwilling to get more information. Similar to the bird who makes a nest on a tree marked for felling, an intelligent system will make decisions and take action based on a…

> How can you arrive at your destination if the distance keeps increasing?

Calculus is the solution to Zeno’s paradox.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#170

Post by JonChesterfield »

The state machine with a random number generator is soundly beating some people in cognition already. That is, if the test for intelligence is set high enough that chatgpt doesn't pass it, nor do quite a lot of the human population.

If you can prove this can't happen, your axioms are wrong or your deduction in error.

Post reply on HN