Technically this is linked to the ability to simulate our universe efficiently. If it’s simulable efficiently then AGI is possible for sure, otherwise we don’t know. Everything boils down to the existence or not of an efficient algorithm to simulate Quantum Physics. At the moment we don’t know any except using QP itself (essentially hacking the Universe’s algorithm itself and cheating) with Quantum Computing (that IMO will prove exponentially difficult to harness, at least the same difficulty as creating AGI). So, yes, brains might be > computers.
AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
21–30 of 437 posts
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#22Without reading the paper how the heck is agi mathematically impossible if humans are possible? Unless the paper is claiming humans are mathematically impossible? I’ll read the paper but the title comes off as out of touch with reality.
What makes you think that human intelligence is based on mathematics?
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.
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#23[flagged]
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans do a lot of things that computers don't, such as be born, age (verb), die, get hungry, fall in love, reproduce, and more. Computers can only metaphorically do these things, human learning is correlated with all of them, and we don't confidently know how. Have some humility.
We don’t even know how LLMs work. But we do know the underlying mechanisms are governed by math because we have a theory of reality that governs things down to the atomic scale and humans and LLMs are made out of atoms. So because of this we know reality is governed by maths. We just can’t fully model the high level consequence of emergent patterns due to the sheer complexity of trillions of interacting atoms. So it’…
>We don’t even know how LLMs work.
Care to elaborate? Because that is utter nonsense.
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans do a lot of things that computers don't, such as be born, age (verb), die, get hungry, fall in love, reproduce, and more. Computers can only metaphorically do these things, human learning is correlated with all of them, and we don't confidently know how. Have some humility.
We don’t even know how LLMs work. But we do know the underlying mechanisms are governed by math because we have a theory of reality that governs things down to the atomic scale and humans and LLMs are made out of atoms. So because of this we know reality is governed by maths. We just can’t fully model the high level consequence of emergent patterns due to the sheer complexity of trillions of interacting atoms. So it’…
> we have a theory of reality that governs things down to the atomic scale and humans and LLMs are made out of atoms.
> So because of this we know reality is governed by maths.
That's not really true. You have a theory, and let's presume so far it's consistent with observations. But it doesn't mean it's 100% correct, and doesn't mean at some point in the future you won't observe something that invalidates the theory. In short, you don't know whether the theory is absolutely true and you can never know.
Without an absolutely true theory, all you have is belief or speculation that reality is governed by maths.
> What does humility have to do with anything?
Not the GP but I think humility is kinda relevant here.
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#26So does the human brain transcend math, or are humans not generally intelligent?
Humans do a lot of things that computers don't, such as be born, age (verb), die, get hungry, fall in love, reproduce, and more. Computers can only metaphorically do these things, human learning is correlated with all of them, and we don't confidently know how. Have some humility.
TFA presents an information-theoretic argument forAGI being impossible. My reading of your parent commenter is that they are asking why this argument does not also apply to humans.
You make broadly valid points, particularly about the advantages of embodyment, but I just dont think theyre good responses to the theoretical article under discussion (or the comment that you were responding to).
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#27So does the human brain transcend math, or are humans not generally intelligent?
First of all, math isn’t real any more than language isn’t real. It’s an entirely human construct, so it’s possible you cannot reach AGI using mathematical means, as math might not be able to fully express it. It’s similar to how language cannot fully describe what a color is , only vague approximations and measurements. If you wanted to create the color green, you cannot do it by describing various properties, you m…
Fair enough. But then, AGI wouldn't really be based on math, but on physics. Why would an artificially-constructed physical system have (fundamentally) different capabilities than a natural one?
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don’t even know how LLMs work. But we do know the underlying mechanisms are governed by math because we have a theory of reality that governs things down to the atomic scale and humans and LLMs are made out of atoms. So because of this we know reality is governed by maths. We just can’t fully model the high level consequence of emergent patterns due to the sheer complexity of trillions of interacting atoms. So it’…
> 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…
Pretty sure in most other contexts you wouldn't agree a medieval scribe knows how a fax machine works.
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#29Clearly nature avoids this problem. So theoretically by replicating natural selection or something else in AI models, which arguably we already do, the theoretical entropy trap clearly can be avoided, we aren't even potentially decreasing entropy with AI training since doing so uses power generation which increases entropy
Re: AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns
#30So does the human brain transcend math, or are humans not generally intelligent?
Humans do a lot of things that computers don't, such as be born, age (verb), die, get hungry, fall in love, reproduce, and more. Computers can only metaphorically do these things, human learning is correlated with all of them, and we don't confidently know how. Have some humility.
Taking GLP-1 makes me question how much hunger is really me versus my hormones controlling me.