11–20 of 83 posts
How is your brain doing it then?
Quantum entanglement?:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a65368553/quantum-e...
And we’re not mathematically impossible, unless that’s some new philosophical theory: “If human intelligence is mathematically impossible, and yet it exists, then mathematics is fallible, and by inductive reasoning logic is fallible, and I can prove things with inductive reasoning, because piss off.”
I think that any paper that argues something is impossible is fundamentally flawed, particularly when there are examples of it being possible. Also, what's the point of telling others you believe what they are doing is impossible, specially after the results we are seeing even at the free-tier, open-to-the-public services?
I think that any paper that argues something is impossible is fundamentally flawed, particularly when there are examples of it being possible. Also, what's the point of telling others you believe what they are doing is impossible, specially after the results we are seeing even at the free-tier, open-to-the-public services?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...
" The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.
The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency. "
:3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It follows that it doesn’t. In practical terms, the result doesn’t matter. The race to approximate the human thought process and call it AGI (which is what matters economically) is on. If you can approximate it meaningfully faster that the real brain works in meatspace, you are winning. What it will mean for humanity or civilization is an open question.
I don't think it even needs to be faster, if you can make an artificial brain that's useful even if it's 100x slower, you can always run stuff in parallel.
How is your brain doing it then?
> How is your brain doing it then? Quantum entanglement?: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a65368553/quantum-e... And we’re not mathematically impossible, unless that’s some new philosophical theory: “If human intelligence is mathematically impossible, and yet it exists, then mathematics is fallible, and by inductive reasoning logic is fallible, and I can prove things with inductive reasoning, because piss of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It follows that it doesn’t. In practical terms, the result doesn’t matter. The race to approximate the human thought process and call it AGI (which is what matters economically) is on. If you can approximate it meaningfully faster that the real brain works in meatspace, you are winning. What it will mean for humanity or civilization is an open question.
I don't think it even needs to be faster, if you can make an artificial brain that's useful even if it's 100x slower, you can always run stuff in parallel.
Even that isn't needed. A "general intelligence" separable from ethics and rights is valuable in itself. It's valuable to subjugate, as long as the subjugated object is producing more than they are consuming.
How is your brain doing it then?
It follows that it doesn’t. In practical terms, the result doesn’t matter. The race to approximate the human thought process and call it AGI (which is what matters economically) is on. If you can approximate it meaningfully faster that the real brain works in meatspace, you are winning. What it will mean for humanity or civilization is an open question.
How is your brain doing it then?
> How is your brain doing it then? Quantum entanglement?: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a65368553/quantum-e... And we’re not mathematically impossible, unless that’s some new philosophical theory: “If human intelligence is mathematically impossible, and yet it exists, then mathematics is fallible, and by inductive reasoning logic is fallible, and I can prove things with inductive reasoning, because piss of…
Wasn't this essentially the conclusion of Gödel. Math, based on a set of axioms, will either have to accept that there are things that are true but can't be proven, or that there are proofs that aren't true.
But I take that to mean there's no general, universal algorithm to tell us anything we want to know. But that's not what intelligence is, we're not defining some kind of absolute intelligence like an oracle for the halting problem. That definition would be a category error.
How is your brain doing it then?
> How is your brain doing it then? Quantum entanglement?: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a65368553/quantum-e... And we’re not mathematically impossible, unless that’s some new philosophical theory: “If human intelligence is mathematically impossible, and yet it exists, then mathematics is fallible, and by inductive reasoning logic is fallible, and I can prove things with inductive reasoning, because piss of…