Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

raspberrypi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 264 posts

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#221

Post by [deleted] »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #104
tracerbulletx wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. This whole AI situation has really exposed how bad most people are at considering the ontological and semantic content of the words they use.

Lot's of assumptions about humanity and how unique we are constantly get paraded in this conversation. Ironically, the people who tout those perspectives are the least likely to understand why we're really not all that "special" from a very factual and academic perspective. You'd think it would unlock certain concepts for this class of people, but ironically, they seem unable to digest the information and update thei…

[deleted]

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#222

Post by _lyxd »

josh-sematic wrote: post #133
_lyxd wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you may consider reading I am a strange loop for that, which can do far better justification than myself if there's surely no algo to solve the halting problem, why would there be maths that describes consciousness?

Can you look at any arbitrary program and tell if it halts without running it indefinitely? If so, you should explain how and collect your Nobel. Telling everybody whether the Collatz conjecture is correct is a good warm up. If not, you can’t solve the halting program either. What does that have to do with consciousness though? Having read “I Am a Strange Loop” I do not believe Hofstadter indicates that the existence…

per halting problem: any system capable of self reference has unprovable (un)truths, the system can not be complete and consistent. consciousness falls under this umbrella

I'll try and ask OG q more clearly: why would the brain, consciousness, be formalizable?

I think there's a yearn view nature as adhering to an underlying model, and a contrary view that consciousness is transcendental, and I lean towards the latter

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#223

Post by hackinthebochs »

phantasmish wrote: post #77
terminalshort wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are the electric currents moving in a GPU any less of a "thing happening" than the firing of the neurons in your brain? What you are describing here is a claim that the brain is fundamentally supernatural.

Thinking that making scribbles that we interpret (!!!) as perfectly describing a functioning consciousness and its operation, on a huge stack of paper, would manifest consciousness in any way whatsoever (hell, let's say we make it an automated flip-book, too, so it "does something"), but if you made the scribbles slightly different it wouldn't work(!?!? why, exactly, not ?!?!), is what's fundamentally supernatural. I…

Computation doesn't care about its substrate. A simulation of a computation is just a computation.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#224

Post by _lyxd »

_alternator_ wrote: post #130
_lyxd wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason to believe this to be the case. Godel says otherwise.

Human brains and experiences seem to be constrained by the laws of quantum physics, which can be simulated to arbitrary fidelity on a computer. Nit sure where Godel’s incompleteness theory would even come in here…

how are we going to deduce/measure/know the initialization and rules for consciousness? do you see any systems as not encodable/simulatable by quantum?

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#225

Post by [deleted] »

t23414321 wrote: post #203
dang wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that word 'think' is a hell of a distraction. We've replaced that bit of the title with a less provocative / more interesting phrase from the article. Hopefully we can talk about the actual math and stuff (although the article doesn't go into much of that).

artificial intelligence in place of artificial knowledge is confusing distraction too, at least artificial is a good reminder since beginning (IMHO its not provocative but well catching a point.. about so called "intelligence" - what if we could look for intelligent knowledge - made in not statistic but semantic(?) and converging way - instead - of being distracted, afraid and.. outpriced, peanuts for the essence it…

[deleted]

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#226

Post by [deleted] »

t23414321 wrote: post #203
dang wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that word 'think' is a hell of a distraction. We've replaced that bit of the title with a less provocative / more interesting phrase from the article. Hopefully we can talk about the actual math and stuff (although the article doesn't go into much of that).

artificial intelligence in place of artificial knowledge is confusing distraction too, at least artificial is a good reminder since beginning (IMHO its not provocative but well catching a point.. about so called "intelligence" - what if we could look for intelligent knowledge - made in not statistic but semantic(?) and converging way - instead - of being distracted, afraid and.. outpriced, peanuts for the essence it…

[deleted]

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#227

Post by [deleted] »

t23414321 wrote: post #203
dang wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that word 'think' is a hell of a distraction. We've replaced that bit of the title with a less provocative / more interesting phrase from the article. Hopefully we can talk about the actual math and stuff (although the article doesn't go into much of that).

artificial intelligence in place of artificial knowledge is confusing distraction too, at least artificial is a good reminder since beginning (IMHO its not provocative but well catching a point.. about so called "intelligence" - what if we could look for intelligent knowledge - made in not statistic but semantic(?) and converging way - instead - of being distracted, afraid and.. outpriced, peanuts for the essence it…

[deleted]

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#228

Post by [deleted] »

t23414321 wrote: post #203
dang wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that word 'think' is a hell of a distraction. We've replaced that bit of the title with a less provocative / more interesting phrase from the article. Hopefully we can talk about the actual math and stuff (although the article doesn't go into much of that).

artificial intelligence in place of artificial knowledge is confusing distraction too, at least artificial is a good reminder since beginning (IMHO its not provocative but well catching a point.. about so called "intelligence" - what if we could look for intelligent knowledge - made in not statistic but semantic(?) and converging way - instead - of being distracted, afraid and.. outpriced, peanuts for the essence it…

[deleted]

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#229

Post by t23414321 »

Retric wrote: post #210
t23414321 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An LLM ..is calculated ..from language (or from things being said by humans before being true or not). It's not some antropomorfic process what using the word thinking would suggest (to sell well). > across multiple tokens - but how many ? how many of them happen in sole person life ? How many in some calculation ? Does it matter, if a calculation doesn't reflect it but stay all the same ? ( conversation with.. a rad…

The general public have no issue saying a computer is thinking when you’re sitting there waiting for it to calculate a route or doing a similar process like selecting a chess move. The connotation is simply an internal process of indeterminate length rather than one of reflexive length. So they don’t apply it when a GPU is slinging out 120 FPS in a first person shooter.

That's right when saying selecting not calculating a chess move - assuming you are outside of Plato's cave (Popper).

But now, I see this: the truth is static and non-profit, but calculating something can be sold again and again, if you have a hammer (processing) everything looks like a nail, to sell well the word thinking had to be used instead of excuse for every time results being different (like the shadows) - then, we can have only things that let someone else keep making profits: JS, LLM, whatever.. (just not.. "XSLT" alike).

(yet, I need to study for your second sentence;)

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#230

Post by hnfong »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #201
hnfong wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do have a valid subtle point though. If we don't think the candle in a simulated universe is a "real candle", why do we consider the intelligence in a simulated universe possibly "real intelligence"? Being a functionalist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_(philosophy_of_m... ) myself, I don't know the answer on the top of my head.

>If we don't think the candle in a simulated universe is a "real candle", why do we consider the intelligence in a simulated universe possibly "real intelligence"? I can smell a "real" candle, a "real" candle can burn my hand. The term real here is just picking out a conceptual schema where its objects can feature as relata of the same laws, like a causal compatibility class defined by a shared causal scope. But this…

Right, but doesn't your argument imply that the only "real" consciousness is mine?

I'm not against this conclusion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie ) but it doesn't seem to be compatible with what most people believe in general.

Post reply on HN