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

211–220 of 437 posts

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#211

Post by wiz21c »

FTA:

> Strange, isn't it? The AI hasn’t crashed. It’s still running.

As a human I answer a question because my time to do so is finite. Why can't we just ask an AI to give its best answer in due time ? As a human I can do that easily. Will my answer be optimal ? No of course, but every manager on earth do that all the time. We're all happy with approximate answers. (and I would add: approximation are sometimes based on our core values, instinct, consciousness, etc.. All things that make us humans, IOW not machines)

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#212

Post by haneul »

amelius wrote: post #209
haneul wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I suppose it disproves embodied, fully meat-space god if sound?

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#213

Post by jillesvangurp »

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.

Yes, the simpler versions of your argument is that the article is basically stating that "human level intelligence is mathematically impossible" (to stick with that fuzzy definition of AGI). Which is of course easily refuted by the fact that humans actually exist and write papers like that. So, the math or its underlying assumptions must be wrong in some way. Intelligent beings existing and AGI being impossible cannot both be true. It's clearly logically wrong and you don't need to be a mathematician to spot the gigantic paradox here.

The rest is just a lot of nit picking and what not for very specific ways to do AGI, very specific definitions of what AGI is, is not, should be, should not be. Etc. Just a lot of people shouting "you're wrong!" at each other for very narrow definitions of what it means to be right. I think that's fundamentally boring.

What it boils down to me is that by figuring out how our own intelligence works, we might stumble upon a path to AGI. And it's not a given that that would be the only path either. At least there appear to be several independently evolved species that exhibit some signs of being intelligent (other than ourselves).

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#214

Post by raincole »

somedude222 wrote: post #200

[flagged]

It's just a typical crackpot paper like those math enthusiasts who self-claimed to prove Goldbach's conjecture or disprove special relativity. If it's not obvious enough, see the author's comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44350876

This post proves an interesting theory though: even the most random thing can get traction on HN as long as it mentions AI.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#215

Post by vessenes »

ICBTheory wrote: post #68
vessenes wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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…

So, in a word: a) there is no ghost in the machine when the machine is a formal symbol-bound machine. And b) to be “G” there must be a ghost in the machine.

Is that a fair summary of your summary?

If so do you spend time on both a and b in your papers? Both are statements that seem to generate vigorous emotional debate.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#217

Post by roenxi »

moomin wrote: post #183
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.

I’m beginning to feel like the tests are part of the problem. Our intelligence tests are all tests of specialisation. We’ve established LLMs are part of the problem. Plenty of people who would fail a bar exam yet still know how many Rs there are in strawberry, could learn a new game just by reading the rules, know how to put up a set of shelves.

I think the problem is that, as far as we can tell, AIs are just more generally intelligent than humans and people are trying to figure out how to assert that they are not. A specialist human in their area of competence can still outperform an AI, but there don't seem to be any fields now where a human novice can reliably out-think a computer.

We're seeing a lot more papers like this one where we have to define humans as non-general-intelligences.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#218

Post by ben_w »

catoc wrote: post #156
ICBTheory wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?”

Indeed. One of my other thoughts here on the Relativity example was "That sets the bar high given most humans can't figure out special relativity even with all the explainers for Einstein's work".

But I'm so used to AGI being conflated with ASI that it didn't seem worth it compared to the more fundamental errors.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#219

Post by PicassoCTs »

wiz21c wrote: post #211

FTA: > Strange, isn't it? The AI hasn’t crashed. It’s still running. As a human I answer a question because my time to do so is finite. Why can't we just ask an AI to give its best answer in due time ? As a human I can do that easily. Will my answer be optimal ? No of course, but every manager on earth do that all the time. We're all happy with approximate answers. (and I would add: approximation are sometimes based…

You can go recursive though, the intrusive thought firing again and again, eating yourself in doubt and endless overthinking things. Which indicates which system chemically regulate and dampens and action/reaction in the human mind.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#220

Post by amelius »

haneul wrote: post #212
amelius wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what then is the relevance of the study?

I suppose it disproves embodied, fully meat-space god if sound?

I'm looking at the title again and it seems wrong, because AGI ~ human intelligence. Unless human intelligence has non physical components to it.
Post reply on HN