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

171–180 of 437 posts

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#171

Post by bboygravity »

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…

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

That's so general that it says nothing. For example: you could say that is how inference in LLMs work (discarding irrelevant information). Or compression in zip files.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#172

Post by bamboozled »

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…

I've always thought something similar, if the system keeps evolving to be more intelligent, and especially in the case of an "intelligence explosion" how do the system keep up with "itself" to do anything useful ?

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#173

Post by vidarh »

ICBTheory wrote: post #2

This 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…

Unless you can prove that humans exceed the Turing computable, the headline is nonsense unless you can also show that the Church-Turing thesis isn't true.

Since you don't even appear to have dealt with this, there is no reason to consider the rest of the paper.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#174

Post by croes »

JonChesterfield wrote: post #170

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.

Would you consider those who fail intelligent?

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#175

Post by warpmellow »

cainxinth wrote: post #90

The crux here is the definition of AGI. The author seems to say that only an endgame, perfect information processing system is AGI. But that definition is too strict because we might develop something that is very far from perfect but which still feels enough like AGI to call it that.

Thats like calling a cupboard a fridge cuz you can keep food in it. The paper clearly sets out to try and prove that the ideal definition of AGI is practically impossible.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#176

Post by vidarh »

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

Unless you can show - even a single example would do - that we can compute a function that is outside the Turing computable set, then there is a very strong reason that we should assume a silicon machine has the same capabilities as a carbon machine to compute.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#177

Post by andoando »

jemmyw wrote: post #161
andoando wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A 4 year old can navigate the world better than any AI robot can

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#178

Post by vidarh »

_cs2017_ wrote: post #131
tim333 wrote: post #59

This sounds rather silly. Given the usual definition of AGI as being human like intelligence with some variation on how smart the humans are, and the fact that humans use a network of neurons that can largely be simulated by an artificial network of neurons, it's probably twaddle largely.

Can you justify the use of the following words in your comment: "largely" and "probably"? I don't see why they are needed at all (unless you're just trying to be polite).

I see the paper as utter twaddle, but I still think the "largely" and "probably" there are reasonable, in the sense that we have not yet actually fully simulated a human brain, and so there exists at least the possibility that we discover something we can't simulate, however small and unlikely we think it is.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#179

Post by rdescartes »

From that paper:

    There exists a class of questions in life that appear remarkably simple in structure and yet contain infinite complexity in their resolution space. Consider the familiar or even archetypal inquiry: "Darling, please be honest: have I gained weight?"

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#180

Post by vidarh »

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…

> Basically because physical laws obviously allow more than algorithmic cognition and problem solving.

This is not obvious at all. Unless you can prove that humans can compute functions beyond the Turing computable, there is no basis for thinking that humans embody and physics that "allow more than algorithmic cognition".

Your claim here also goes against the physical interpretation of the Church-Turing thesis.

Without rigorously addressing this, there is no point taking your papers seriously.

Post reply on HN