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

381–390 of 437 posts

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#381

Post by nextaccountic »

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…

> level of Artificiality

How do you define that? And why is this important?

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#382

Post by nextaccountic »

jemmyw wrote: post #98
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?

I would argue that you are not a general intelligence. Humans have quite a specific intelligence. It might be the broadest, most general, among animal species, but it is not general. That manifests in that we each need to spend a significant amount of time training ourselves for specific areas of capability. You can't then switch instantly to another area without further training, even though all the context material…

Note that AGI (artificial general intelligence) and ASI (artificial superintelligence) are different thins

AGI reaches human level and ASI goes beyond that

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#383

Post by cess11 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #315
cess11 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect there's a harsher argument to be made regarding "autonomous". Pull the power cord and see if it does what a mammal would do, or if it rather resembles a chaotic water wheel.

> Pull the power cord and see if it does what a mammal would do Pulling the power cord on a mammal means shutting off its metabolism. That predictably kills us.

No. If the analogy had been about frying the chips and internal wires, then maybe that might have been a reasonable comparison, but it was not.

Now it's about cutting the supply of food.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#384

Post by cess11 »

mystified5016 wrote: post #336
cess11 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should start caring about the meaning of words.

You're the one using words incorrectly. Everybody else agrees on what these words mean and you're insisting on your own made-up definitions. And then you throw a fit like a child when someone disagrees. You're wrong and you're behaving inappropriately.

No, I did not. It appears I'm rather alone in this setting to make a difference between automatic and autonomous.

If immediate, direct dependence and autonomy are compatible, I want none of it.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#385

Post by cess11 »

viraptor wrote: post #333
cess11 wrote: post #322

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.

You seem to be taking about some kind of free will and perfect independence, not autonomy as normally understood. Agents can have autonomy within the environment they have access to. We talk about autonomous vehicles for example, where we want them to still stay within some action boundaries. Otherwise we'd be discussing metaphysics. It's not like we can cross physical/body boundaries just because we've got autonomy.…

I don't see the relevance of things that carry their own power supply either, and I still disagree that Conway automata and similar software exhibit autonomy.

I did not mention "free will and perfect independence".

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#386

Post by viraptor »

cess11 wrote: post #385
viraptor wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be taking about some kind of free will and perfect independence, not autonomy as normally understood. Agents can have autonomy within the environment they have access to. We talk about autonomous vehicles for example, where we want them to still stay within some action boundaries. Otherwise we'd be discussing metaphysics. It's not like we can cross physical/body boundaries just because we've got autonomy.…

I don't see the relevance of things that carry their own power supply either, and I still disagree that Conway automata and similar software exhibit autonomy. I did not mention "free will and perfect independence".

You also carry your own power supply...

I could go into more details, but basically you tried to call out some weird use of "autonomous" when I'm using the meaning that's an industry standard. If you mean something else, you'll need to define it. Saying you can't be autonomous under someone's rules brings a serious number of issues to address, before you get to anything AI related.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#387

Post by fc417fc802 »

zapperdulchen wrote: post #373
kolinko wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using computation/algorithmic methods we can simulate nonalgorithmic systems. So the world within a computer program can behave in a nonalgorithmic way. Also, one might argue that universe/laws of physics are computational.

> Also, one might argue that universe/laws of physics are computational. Maybe we need to define "computational" before moving on. To me this echoes the clockwork universe of the Enligthenment. Insights of quantum physics have shattered this idea.

You can simulate a nondeterministic process. There's just no way to consistently get a matching outcome. It's no different than running the process itself multiple times and getting different outputs for the same inputs.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#388

Post by ben_w »

cess11 wrote: post #383
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pull the power cord and see if it does what a mammal would do Pulling the power cord on a mammal means shutting off its metabolism. That predictably kills us.

No. If the analogy had been about frying the chips and internal wires, then maybe that might have been a reasonable comparison, but it was not. Now it's about cutting the supply of food.

"Food" is only analogous to "mains power" for devices which also have a battery.

But regarding hunger: while they are a weird and pathological example, breatharians are in fact mammals, and the result of the absence of food is sometimes "starves to death" and not always "changes mind about this whole breatharian thing" or "pathological dishonesty about calorie content of digestive biscuits dunked in tea".

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#389

Post by cess11 »

ben_w wrote: post #388
cess11 wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If the analogy had been about frying the chips and internal wires, then maybe that might have been a reasonable comparison, but it was not. Now it's about cutting the supply of food.

"Food" is only analogous to "mains power" for devices which also have a battery. But regarding hunger: while they are a weird and pathological example, breatharians are in fact mammals, and the result of the absence of food is sometimes "starves to death" and not always "changes mind about this whole breatharian thing" or "pathological dishonesty about calorie content of digestive biscuits dunked in tea".

Right, so you agree that there is a clear difference between a mammal and the device we're discussing.

I'm not sure why introducing a certain type of rare scam artist into the modeling of this thought experiment would make things clearer or more interesting.

Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns

#390

Post by ben_w »

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

> There is no reason why we should assume a silicon machine must have the same capabilities as a carbon machine

Then make your computer out of carbon.

While the broader principle, that we don't know what we're doing and AI as it currently exists is a bit cargo-culty, this is a critique of the SOTA and is insufficient to be generalised: we can reasonably say "we probably have not", we can't say "we definitely cannot ever".

Who knows, perhaps our brains do somehow manage to do whacky quantum stuff despite seeming to be far too warm and messy for that. But even that is just an implementation detail.

Post reply on HN