61–70 of 88 posts
> Second, some people do really believe in a kind of platonic representation space that all models converge on, and that represents the “true” state of the world. If truth is indeed an objective part of the world, then you might expect such a universal truth direction to emerge as models get better. This This really sounds like all those scifi stories with people trying to find god in the computer. How could it be th…
Ok, I get it. Either expressiveness or completeness, but the question arises: did mathematicians explore systems with limits on expressiveness? In a field of computer programming there is Rust with limited expressiveness that doesn't solve all the problems, but still makes things much simpler. How about a mathematics with limited expressiveness and some unsafe blocks here and there?
A direction that is 99.99% accurate survives this argument completely. For all practical purposes one does not need totality.
For a one time coin flip, sure. For a lot of them, depending on the stakes, that can be very, very wrong. https://www.google.com/search?q=why+99.99+accuracy+is+not+en... It doesn't take a lot of thought experiments to realize this. Imagine if every bite of food we eat had a 0.01% chance to turn into something instantly lethal in our mouth. Average lifespans would be reduced measurably, and apart from anxiety, we'd de…
To justify relevance of inability to correctly answer liars-paradox-type questions ("what won't your response to this be?"), the article suggested the way LLMs are used in practice is dependant on them being entirely accurate truth oracles:
> > as a truth-oracle [...] is how these things will be used practically by the vast majority of people. They are already replacing standard Google search results
But for the replacement to make sense they just need to be more accurate than what they're replacing (ignoring other factors like convenience and cost) - in this case standard Google search results and knowledge box which were obviously not 100.0% accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If 1 in 10,000 people have a disease, then a "test" which always reports the patient doesn't have the disease will be correct 99.99% of the time. "99.99% accuracy" should be "looked at with skepticism" in that it doesn't tell you what you need to know to understand the quality of a a test for a rare disease (a classifier under conditions of severe class imbalance); at a minimum, you would want to understand it's fals…
If only stating the obvious was a fallacy :) You appear not to have understood probability theory my friend. You will never get 100% in this universe for anything. What if "its a simulation" or "a dream" arguments ensures you never acheive 100%. Bayes probability theory will be a good start for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem
> Second, some people do really believe in a kind of platonic representation space that all models converge on, and that represents the “true” state of the world. If truth is indeed an objective part of the world, then you might expect such a universal truth direction to emerge as models get better. This This really sounds like all those scifi stories with people trying to find god in the computer. How could it be th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'I know this is true' is different than 'This is true' is different than 'It is impossible to say if it's true or false' is different than 'I've no idea', right?
no, and that's the point. hard to wrap your mind about this bit, yes.
> This resolved the most basic liar paradox, but not every diagonal attack, since not all functions on [0, 1] have fixed points. To make this work in general, we can for example allow only continuous functions on [0, 1] (which always have a fixed point by Brouwer’s fixed-point theorem). But that restriction comes at the cost of expressivity: "This sentence has truth score less than 0.5" is not a continuous function o…
I think that one of the main problems with LLMs is that we're shoveling everything in to them, without any guidance as to what is "real"/"true"/"factual" - crazy anti-vaxxer-cooker stuff is is sitting in their along with science without any concept of scientific reality and no guidance to what is real and what is insane minds spinning on each other
I think this is closer to "true". The troubling bit is they're also trained with fiction bits. They're role players and you can get them to switch into arbitrary modes, including sychophants who will tell you whatever you want to hear is true.
> this sentence has no proof As a programmer I was never impressed in such paradoxes. For me it was kinda obvious that in any sufficiently complex language you can create eqivalent of buggy infinite loop/recursion.
Regarding programming languages, it means that for any programming language with a non-trivial type system, either there will be correctly typed programs that however fails the type checker, or there will be ill-typed programs that cause the type checker to run into an infinite loop.
Aren't there definitions of Truth that are not the negation of Falsehood? Can't there be a function True(x) that is not equal to !False(x)? Can't there be a third function Paradox(x) such that these counterexamples can be considered paradoxes and therefore outside of the truth? I'm admittedly not a logician and don't formally study paradoxes, but I never quite understood the whole category of "this sentence is false"…