AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

I never said it was wrong, nor right. In fact, you might even read that as an excuse for "counter-hypists", as it's a pretty bad look to upvote such a low-quality submission. And I've made my own fun of AGI hype, but with knowledge of the fact that brevity is the fool of wit.

"tons what they" autocorrected from "to do what they do."

"Paucity of the stimulus" is the term for what I'm talking about with the brain needing much less data, but beyond just more parameters we may have innate language processing that isn't there in other animals; Chomsky has been kind of relegated away now after LLMs but he may still have been right if it isn't just parameter count and or the innate thing different from animals isn't something like transformers. If you look at the modern language program in Chomsky's later years, it does have some remarkably similar things to transformers: permutation independent internal representation, and the merge operation being very similar to transformer's soft max. It's kind of describing something very like single head attention.

We know animals have rich innate neural abilities beyond just beating the heart and breathing etc.: a baby horse can be blind folded from birth, several days later blind fold taken off and it can immediately walk and navigate. Further development goes on, but other animals like cats have a visual system that doesn't seem to develop at all if it doesn't get natural stimulus in a critical early period. Something like that may apply to human language, it may be multiple systems missing from other apes and early hominids, but whatever it is we don't think it had many generations to evolve. Researchers have identified circuits in songbird brains that are also in humans but not apes, and something like that may be a piece of it for tracking sequences.

Appreciate the response, and apologies for being needlessly sharp myself. Thank you for bringing the temperature down.

> Are we treating an arbitrary ontological assertion as if it’s a formal argument that needs to be heroically refuted?

The formality of the paper already supposes a level of rigor. The problem at its core, is that p_intelligent(x: X) where X ∈ {human, AI} is not a demonstrable scissor by just proving p_intelligent(AI) = false. Without walking us through the steps that p_intelligent(human) = true, we cannot be sure that the predicate isn't simply always false.

Without demonstrating that humans satisfy the claims we can't be sure if the results are vacuously true because nothing, in fact, can satisfy the standard.

These aren't heroic refutations, they're table stakes.

> the entire world claims this assumption by action then my claim is inline with the entire world.

That's not what you claimed and that's not what I replied to.

You said you have a theory, and because of that you know something.

The explanation or the theory does not have to be right for something to work. The fact that I'm using modern technology does not mean that whatever theory of reality in vogue is fundamentally right. It just needs to work under certain conditions.

> You may say no one can prove math or probability to be real but you certainly don’t live your life that way. You don’t think that science logic and technology will suddenly fall apart and not work when oh turn on your computer.

That's a really strong claim to make, especially with "you". You don't know how I live. It's like seeing somebody appear in Church and denigrating them for not believing in Jesus.

No, I believe the world could fall apart at any time. Most people call it death. The fact that 99.9% people believe in death and continue their lives without panicking is probably something you want to think about as well. Heck, even a sufficiently strong solar flare could bring down this entire modern technology stack. Am I wrong to continue to use the web and debate about metaphysics given this knowledge? I don't think so, and neither do I think that my presence says anything about my belief in mathematics or whatever else governing reality.

Re;

Section 3.1

This is a question on how human do we want AI's to act, which I think could just be set thru system prompts.

Section 3.2

I think this is an argument saying that AI's are fundamentally missing certain sensory inputs so its information space is limited? Bad argument cuz you can always amend sensory information. The question could also be reframed as an experiment design problem instead of treating AI as an oracle. There's no reason an autonomous reasoning system can't do this.

Section 3.3

This is probably the worst argument yet. It's basically claiming that AI can't synthesize information?! Idk why the author keeps trying to simulate AI with his own words instead of just running the systems outright.