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

201–210 of 437 posts

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#201

Post by 317070 »

afiori wrote: post #194
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…

> specific problem classes (those with α ≤ 1), For the layman, what does α mean here?

I'm sure this is a reference to alpha stable distributions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_distribution

Most of these don't have finite moments and are hard to do inference on with standard statistical tools. Nassim Taleb's work (Black Swan, etc.) is around these distributions.

But I think the argument of OP in this section doesn't hold.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#202

Post by fc417fc802 »

moefh wrote: post #140
fc417fc802 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then you must accept that the question is settled in favor of Penrose. That's obviously beyond the realm of mathematics. Not necessarily. You are assuming (AFAICT) that we 1. have perfect knowledge of physics and 2. have perfect knowledge of how humans map to physics. I don't believe either of those is true though. Particularly 1 appears to be very obviously false, otherwise what are all those theoretical physicist…

Where am I assuming that we have perfect knowledge of physics? To make it plain, I'll break the argument in two parts: (a) if AGI is impossible but humans are intelligent, then it must be the case that human behavior can't be explained algorithmically (that last part is Penrose's position). (b) the statement that human behavior can't be explained algorithmically is about physics, not mathematics. I hope it's clear th…

You didn't. I confused something but looking at the comment chain now I can't figure out what. I'd say we're actually in perfect agreement.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#203

Post by bloqs »

vidarh wrote: post #173
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.

could you explain for a layman

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#204

Post by Dave_Wishengrad »

tomhow wrote: post #137
Dave_Wishengrad wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Penrose was personally contacted by myself with the truth that is the cure and he ignored the correspondence and in doing so gambled all life on earth that he knew better when he didn't. Scientific Proof of the E_infinity Formula Scientific Validation of E_infinity Abstract: This document presents a formalized proof for the universal truth-based model represented by the formula: E_infinity = (L1 × U) / D Where: - L1…

Please don't post AI-generated comments like this, or indeed any lengthy comments like this even if they're not AI-generated. They gunk up the threads and they're too long and difficult to process in the context of a discussion on HN, which best thought of as like a dinner table discussion or chat over drinks than a presentation of a thesis about a novel theoretical concept.

[dead]

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#205

Post by Dave_Wishengrad »

tomhow wrote: post #137
Dave_Wishengrad wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Penrose was personally contacted by myself with the truth that is the cure and he ignored the correspondence and in doing so gambled all life on earth that he knew better when he didn't. Scientific Proof of the E_infinity Formula Scientific Validation of E_infinity Abstract: This document presents a formalized proof for the universal truth-based model represented by the formula: E_infinity = (L1 × U) / D Where: - L1…

Please don't post AI-generated comments like this, or indeed any lengthy comments like this even if they're not AI-generated. They gunk up the threads and they're too long and difficult to process in the context of a discussion on HN, which best thought of as like a dinner table discussion or chat over drinks than a presentation of a thesis about a novel theoretical concept.

[dead]

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#206

Post by baxtr »

vidarh wrote: post #173
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.

I think OP answered the question here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44349516

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#209

Post by amelius »

haneul wrote: post #193
vidarh wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> In plain language: > No matter how sophisticated, the system MUST fail on some inputs. Well, no person is immune to propaganda and stupididty, so I don't see it as a huge issue.

But what then is the relevance of the study?

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#210

Post by romain_batlle »

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…

why would AGI have to be omnisciente to be AGI?
Post reply on HN