351–360 of 437 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's based on physics, which is based on mathematics. Alternately, even if we one day learn that physics is not reducible to mathematics, both humans and computers are still based on the same physics.
And the soul?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Computability or algorithms are the problem.
It is all the 'no effective algorithm exists for X' that is the problem.
Spike train retiming and issues with riddled basins in existing computers and math is an example if you drop compute a function
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We don’t even know how LLMs work Speak for yourself. LLMs are a feedforward algorithm inferring static weights to create a tokenized response string. We can compare that pretty trivially to the dynamic relationship of neurons and synapses in the human brain. It's not similar, case closed. That's the extent of serious discussion that can be had comparing LLMs to human thought, with apologies to Chomsky et. al. It's…
George Hinton the person largely responsible about the AI revolution has this to say: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1lbbg0x/geoffr... https://youtu.be/qrvK_KuIeJk?t=284 In that video above George Hinton, directly says we don't understand how it works. So I don't speak just for myself. I speak for the person who ushered in the AI revolution, I speak for Experts in the field who know what they're talkin…
That isn't what Hinton said in the first link. He says essentially:
People don't understand A so they think B.
But actually the truth is C.
This folksy turn of phrase is about a group of "people" who are less knowledgeable about the technology and have misconceptions.
Maybe he said something more on point in the second link, but your haphazard use of urls doesn't make me want to read on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non-computable functions are not relevant to this discussion, though, because humans can't compute them either, and so inherently an AGI need not be able to compute them. The point remains that we know of no function that is computable to humans that is not in the Turing computable / general recursive function / lambda calculus set, and absent any indication that any such function is even possible, much less an examp…
Humans do a lot of stuff that is hard to 'functionalise', computable or otherwise, so I'd say the burden of proof is on you. What's the function for creating a work of art? Or driving a car?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compute functions != Intelligence though. For example learning from experience (which LLMs cannot do because they cannot experience anything and they cannot learn) is clearly an attribute of an intelligent machine. LLMs can tell you about the taste of a beer, but we know that they have never tasted a beer. Flight simulators can't take you to Australia, no matter how well they simulate the experience.
> Compute functions != Intelligence though. If that is true, you have a proof that the Church-Turing thesis is false. > LLMs can tell you about the taste of a beer, but we know that they have never tasted a beer. Flight simulators can't take you to Australia, no matter how well they simulate the experience. For this to be relevant, you'd need to show that there are possible sensory inputs that can't be simulated to a…
We're talking the physical version right? I don't have any counter examples that I can describe, but I could hold that that's because human language, perception and cognition cannot capture the mechanisms that are necessary to produce them.
But I won't as that's cheating.
Instead I would say that although I can't disprove PCT it's not proven either, and unlike other unproven things like P!=NP this is about physical systems. Some people think that all of physical reality is discrete (quantized), if they are right then PCT could be true. However, I don't think this is so as I think that it means that you have to consider time as unreal, and I think that's basically as crazy as denying consciousness and free will. I know that a lot of physicists are very clever, but those of them that have lost the sense to differentiate between a system for describing parts of the universe and a system that defines the workings of the universe as we cannot comprehend it are not good at parties in my experience.
>For this to be relevant, you'd need to show that there are possible sensory inputs that can't be simulated to a point where the "brain" in question - be it natural or artificial - can't tell the difference.
I dunno what you mean by "relevant" here - you seem to be denying that there is a difference between reality and unreality? Like a Super Cartesian idea where you say that not only is the mind separate from the body but that the existence of bodies or indeed the universe that they are instantiated in is irrelevant and doesn't matter?
Wild. Kinda fun, but wild.
I stand by my point though, computing functions about how molecules interact with each other and lead to the propagation of signals along neural pathways to generate qualia is only the same as tasting beer if the qualia are real. I don't see that there is any account of how computation can create a feeling of reality or what it is like to. At some point you have to hit the bottom and actually have an experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never made a claim for absolute truth. I said it’s the most likely truth given the fact that you get up every morning and drive a car or turn on your computer and assume everything will work. Because we all assume it, we assume all of logic behind it to be true as well. Whatever probability is, whatever philosophers say about it any of this it doesn’t matter. You act like all of it is true including the usage of th…
> 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 fundamentall…
This is the most likely possibility and we have based all of our technology and culture and science around this.
And that’s the summary of my claim and what I meant by this:
the entire world claims this assumption by action then my claim is inline with the entire world.
I assumed it was obvious because when does the world make a claim? The world doesn’t make any singular claim. But they do take a singular action of acting on the assumption the theories are true.
> 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.
Yeah and you know what’s crazy? I’d bet a million dollars on it. It’s insane how confident I am about it right? And you know what’s even crazier? You know that I’d win that bet even though you didn’t volunteer any information about your stance. Did I know this information through my psychic powers or what? No. I didn’t. But you also have a good idea how I know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that may depend on how someone defines intelligence. For example, if intelligence includes the ability to feel emotion or appreciate art, then I think it becomes much more plausible that intelligence is not the same as computation. Of course, simply stating that isn't in of itself a philisophically rigorous argument. However, given that not everyone has training in philosophy and it may not even be possible t…
I think if they define intelligence that way, it isn't a very interesting discussion, because we're back to Church-Turing: Either they can show that this actually has an effect on the ability to reason and the possible outputs of the system that somehow exceeds the Turing computable, or those aspects are irrelevant to an outside observer of said entity because the entity would still be able to act in exactly the same…
On the other hand many people seem unwilling to accept the reports of others that they are conscious and have freedom of will and freedom to act. At the same time these people do not live as if others were not conscious and bereft of free will. They do not watch other people murdering their children and state "well they had no choice". No they demand that the murderers are punished for their terrible choice. They build systems of intervention to prevent some choices and promote others.
It's not orthogonal, it's the motivating force for our actions and changes our universe. It's the heart of the matter, and although it's easy to look away and focus on other parts of the problems of intelligence at some point we have to turn and face it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that was a simulation, akin to Conway's cellular automata. You seem to consider being fully under someone else's control to qualify as autonomy, at least in certain casees, which to me comes across as very bizarre.
Humans are not physical machines? Please explain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“This paper presents a theoretical proof that AGI systems will structurally collapse under certain semantic conditions…” No it doesn’t. Shannon entropy measures statistical uncertainty in data. It says nothing about whether an agent can invent new conceptual frames. Equating “frame changes” with rising entropy is a metaphor, not a theorem, so it doesn’t even make sense as a mathematical proof. This is philosophical m…
Correct: Shannon entropy originally measures statistical uncertainty over a fixed symbol space. When the system is fed additional information/data, then entropy goes down, uncertainty falls. This is always true in situations where the possible outcomes are a) sufficiently limited and b)unequally distributed. In such cases, with enough input, the system can collapse the uncertainty function within a finite number of s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok - where do AIs put the information that they "seek" from the internet?
Truthfully, few people know that right now! They're backfeeding what it's "learning" along the way - whether it's in a smart fashion, we don't know yet.