You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
(nobody)
...and 35 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2610840
Today 2
Topics 127339
  
 
Messageboard index
rant
 

offline kei9 from Argentina on 2023-12-22 02:41 [#02631564]
Points: 421 Status: Regular



the problem is not about mathematical technique or
complexity that is in place to evaluate functions. the
problem is we cant even begin to understand what is the
function (or set of functions) for the intuition that can
formulate meaningful axioms or good functions. just as we
cant synthesize pain or balance we cant synthesize intuition
(No one can do this because no one knows how it is done. You
can simulate the behaviour of a subject after feeling pain
but you cant emulate pain itself. Just as you can make a
robot that walks like a human but you cant make it have
proprioception, or an intuitive feeling of gravity).
take newtonian gravity for example. No matter how good you
know the system (matter) there is no description of gravity
in any part of the system. To come up with that explanation
a leap of imagination (induction) is needed to figure out
theres something you cant see that its explaining the
behavior. This is the kind of intuition you cant simulate.
Regardless of how accurate or not newtonian gravity is, it
is meaningful. The construction of meaning is another thing
machine learning cant grasp at all. So you see the mind is
not as simple as you fist thought.
in principle, this all could be boiled down to
probability.but that would tell you nothing about what is
going on in the mind when it comes up with a good induction.
just as you could give 1 million monkeys a typewriter each
and in an unlimited time frame maybe one will write goethes
faust letter by letter, but that wouldnt make that monkey
goethe.
so you cant synthesize induction, you can simulate its
results (in principle). Just as you cant synthesize pain
(these things happen in the mind and no one knows exactly
how).


 

offline recycle from Where is Phobiazero (Lincoln) (United States) on 2023-12-25 22:43 [#02631623]
Points: 39587 Status: Regular



1 point


 

offline Wolfslice from Bay Area, CA (United States) on 2023-12-26 04:04 [#02631626]
Points: 4824 Status: Regular



Didn't Einstein just flat out write an equation for gravity
that has not been diNewton. With regards to general
relativity? Who needs newton.

I never believed this one million monkeys thing at all.

You'd have one million retarded scripts of monkey jibberish


 

offline Wolfslice from Bay Area, CA (United States) on 2023-12-26 04:05 [#02631627]
Points: 4824 Status: Regular



Di Newton = disproven. What is auto correct doing!

Making me look like a monkey


 

offline RussellDust on 2023-12-26 09:04 [#02631630]
Points: 15977 Status: Lurker | Followup to Wolfslice: #02631626



“ I never believed this one million monkeys thing at all.

You'd have one million retarded scripts of monkey
jibberish”

Ouch…. Worst post you’ve ever made.


 

offline RussellDust on 2023-12-26 17:33 [#02631644]
Points: 15977 Status: Lurker



Maybe it was tongue in cheek on your part sorry


 

offline Wolfslice from Bay Area, CA (United States) on 2023-12-27 00:09 [#02631655]
Points: 4824 Status: Regular



Nah I'm actually serious.

If a trillion monkeys wrote for a trillion years, I believe
none would actually pelt out the completed works of
shakespere of gothe, or any other cogent work.

It would be a trillion years of monkey gibberish. You'd get
a similar passage here and there, by chance. Never a
complete novel.

Now if the monkeys were having sex and evolving over that
period of time im sure they'd eventually become smart enough
to write something similar, but the metaphor is about static
conicidence and probabability.


 

offline Wolfslice from Bay Area, CA (United States) on 2023-12-27 00:32 [#02631659]
Points: 4824 Status: Regular



I also don't really buy the quantum theories that there's a
reality for every possibility.

Like, there's a reality where Leonardo DiCaprio, remaining,
in this reality, a successful actor, married a dwarf covered
in 3rd degree burns. Or one where the united states duly
elects a cat for president.

There's something wrong with the theory itself. At a point,
the odds are zero. I think the odds are zero with the
monkeys. Forget a trillion years. I'd bet no monkey writes
the complete work of shakespere with *infinite* time.


 

offline RussellDust on 2023-12-27 07:46 [#02631669]
Points: 15977 Status: Lurker



I know it as just a way to explain infinity and infinite
odds. Of course a trillion years might have just given you a
word by accident. ‘Surplus’ or something.


 

offline RussellDust on 2023-12-27 07:47 [#02631670]
Points: 15977 Status: Lurker



I’m surprised you didn’t mention the monkeys would die.


 

offline kei9 from Argentina on 2024-01-08 01:50 [#02631842]
Points: 421 Status: Regular



hey guys sorry for the hiatus

this rant is something I worte about the limits of AI

the newton theory is quoted as an example of a theory that
can make very accurate predictions

its axioms cannot be deduced from the objects it acts upon
as it is not any of the objects in the system but an
induction of how the objects in the system interact with one
another. its ultimate nature of what explains this
interactions is forever beyond our grasp. the theory itself
only exists as a meaningful explanation because it is
instrumental for a subject as an abstraction of its
intuition of time and space.

this intuition of time and space is meaningful for a subject
as a way of attending to the necessities of a body which AIs
are oblivious about. there cant be no subject without
suffering


 

offline Tony Danza from Sesame Street on 2024-01-08 01:57 [#02631843]
Points: 3564 Status: Regular



Yeah I'm inclined to agree that development of real
consciousness requires "skin in the game" at least in your
ancestors.

Start torturing those neural networks, researchers!


 


Messageboard index