4 ms·

Is there a proof that generalization or goal and action selection or other things associated with intelligence are actually computable? If the Strong Free Will

Is there a proof that generalization or goal and action selection or other things associated with intelligence are actually computable? If the Strong Free Will theorem is right, there are distinct limits on the ability of computational devices to simulate our physics. For one, anything a computable machine does "on its own" will be a function of the past history of the universe (deterministic), whereas the SFWT says that elementary particles are free to act without regard to the entirity of history. E: even a one word reply conveys so much more than an anonymous downmod.

kabouseng 10y ago
I didn't downvote you but I suppose the criticism would be that our machines are built from the same elementary particles that a brain is, so why would our machines suddenly be so deterministic as to disallow strong ai but a brain is not. Furthermore a ai does not compute a physics model any more than a brain does, so the criticism does not apply.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  But the theory of the machines is entirely deterministic. Any non-deterministic behavior of a machine would be considered an error under any approaches being discussed here. The point is that the universe can do things that functions cannot. If your only tool is functions (only thing that algorithms can compute), then you will necessarily be unable to handle all possibilities (by which point, I question your intelligence).
  - lukeschlather 10y ago
    Functions routinely use random number generators. Pretty much all AI/Machine Learning techniques use non-determinism as part of their design. But even so, it's confusing to phrase intelligence in terms of non-determinism. It's easy to come up with a non-deterministic answer to an arbitrary question. It's hard to come up with a correct answer to an arbitrary question. If unpredictability is a component of sound reasoning, it's because we humans are so bad at reasoning.
    - jsprogrammer 10y ago
      Pseudo-random generators, for sure, which are entirely deterministic. It does not even matter if you had a source of truly random numbers. Given the same sequence of numbers, an algorithm will return the same result. That is what it means to be a function. The problem is not that, "my answer must be 'unpredictable'", but, "the actual answer may not be computable" (and so, no algorithm may ever derive it).
      - botw 10y ago
        That is why random generator has seed, which sometimes considers non-deterministic factors such as hardware noise and environment noise.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ScottBurson 10y ago
I think if the one-word reply had been offered, it would say: "Dualism". Dualism is a very lonely position around HN. You and I may be the only dualists here.
- hacker42 10y ago
  I think none of the things I've mentioned rule dualism completely out, but they likely restrict the possibilities of where to find it.
Dn_Ab 10y ago
I did not downvote (and you're clear now) but your post is not a relevant argument. The determinism that the SFWT is arguing against is that of certain hidden variable theories of quantum mechanics. It states that if the humans are free to choose particular configurations for an experiment measuring this or that spin, then bounded by relativity and experimentally verified aspects of quantum mechanics, the behaviors of the particles cannot be dependent on the past history of the universe. The main characters are the particles, people are incidental. > "Our argument combines the well-known consequence of relativity theory, that the time order of space-like separated events is not absolute, with the EPR paradox discovered by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935, and the Kochen-Specker Paradox of 1967" So as far as I can tell, it takes for granted the humans' ability to choose the configurations freely, which though suspect in of itself doesn't matter so much to their argument as it's not really an argument for free will, it's a discussion of how inherent to quantum mechanics non-determinism is. > "To be precise, we mean that the choice an experimenter makes is not a function of the past." > "We have supposed that the experimenters’ choices of directions from the Peres configuration are totally free and independent." > "It is the experimenters’ free will that allows the free and independent choices of x, y, z, and w ." It is actually, if anything, in favor of no distinction between humans and computers (more precisely, it is not dependent on humans, only a "free chooser") as they argue that though the humans can be replaced by pseudo random number generators, the generators need to be chosen by something with "free choice" so as to escape objections by pendants that the PRNG's path was set at the beginning of time. > The humans who choose x, y, z, and w may of course be replaced by a computer program containing a pseudo-random number generator. > "However, as we remark in [1], free will would still be needed to choose the random number generator, since a determined determinist could maintain that this choice was fixed from the dawn of time." There is nothing whatsoever in the paper that stops an AI from having whatever ability to choose freely humans have. The way you're using determinism is more akin to precision and reliability—the human brain has tolerances but it too requires some amount of reliability to function correctly, even if not as much as computers do. In performing its tasks, though the brain is tolerant to noise and stochasticity, it still requires that those tasks happen in a very specific way. Asides, the paper is not an argument for randomness or stochasticity. > ” In the present state of knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities to understand the connection between the free decisions of particles and humans, but the free will of neither of these is accounted for by mere randomness."

kabouseng 10y ago

I didn't downvote you but I suppose the criticism would be that our machines are built from the same elementary particles that a brain is, so why would our machines suddenly be so deterministic as to disallow strong ai but a brain is not. Furthermore a ai does not compute a physics model any more than a brain does, so the criticism does not apply.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
But the theory of the machines is entirely deterministic. Any non-deterministic behavior of a machine would be considered an error under any approaches being discussed here. The point is that the universe can do things that functions cannot. If your only tool is functions (only thing that algorithms can compute), then you will necessarily be unable to handle all possibilities (by which point, I question your intelligence).
- lukeschlather 10y ago
  Functions routinely use random number generators. Pretty much all AI/Machine Learning techniques use non-determinism as part of their design. But even so, it's confusing to phrase intelligence in terms of non-determinism. It's easy to come up with a non-deterministic answer to an arbitrary question. It's hard to come up with a correct answer to an arbitrary question. If unpredictability is a component of sound reasoning, it's because we humans are so bad at reasoning.
  - jsprogrammer 10y ago
    Pseudo-random generators, for sure, which are entirely deterministic. It does not even matter if you had a source of truly random numbers. Given the same sequence of numbers, an algorithm will return the same result. That is what it means to be a function. The problem is not that, "my answer must be 'unpredictable'", but, "the actual answer may not be computable" (and so, no algorithm may ever derive it).
    - botw 10y ago
      That is why random generator has seed, which sometimes considers non-deterministic factors such as hardware noise and environment noise.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ScottBurson 10y ago

I think if the one-word reply had been offered, it would say: "Dualism". Dualism is a very lonely position around HN. You and I may be the only dualists here.

hacker42 10y ago
I think none of the things I've mentioned rule dualism completely out, but they likely restrict the possibilities of where to find it.

Dn_Ab 10y ago

I did not downvote (and you're clear now) but your post is not a relevant argument. The determinism that the SFWT is arguing against is that of certain hidden variable theories of quantum mechanics. It states that if the humans are free to choose particular configurations for an experiment measuring this or that spin, then bounded by relativity and experimentally verified aspects of quantum mechanics, the behaviors of the particles cannot be dependent on the past history of the universe. The main characters are the particles, people are incidental. > "Our argument combines the well-known consequence of relativity theory, that the time order of space-like separated events is not absolute, with the EPR paradox discovered by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935, and the Kochen-Specker Paradox of 1967" So as far as I can tell, it takes for granted the humans' ability to choose the configurations freely, which though suspect in of itself doesn't matter so much to their argument as it's not really an argument for free will, it's a discussion of how inherent to quantum mechanics non-determinism is. > "To be precise, we mean that the choice an experimenter makes is not a function of the past." > "We have supposed that the experimenters’ choices of directions from the Peres configuration are totally free and independent." > "It is the experimenters’ free will that allows the free and independent choices of x, y, z, and w ." It is actually, if anything, in favor of no distinction between humans and computers (more precisely, it is not dependent on humans, only a "free chooser") as they argue that though the humans can be replaced by pseudo random number generators, the generators need to be chosen by something with "free choice" so as to escape objections by pendants that the PRNG's path was set at the beginning of time. > The humans who choose x, y, z, and w may of course be replaced by a computer program containing a pseudo-random number generator. > "However, as we remark in [1], free will would still be needed to choose the random number generator, since a determined determinist could maintain that this choice was fixed from the dawn of time." There is nothing whatsoever in the paper that stops an AI from having whatever ability to choose freely humans have. The way you're using determinism is more akin to precision and reliability—the human brain has tolerances but it too requires some amount of reliability to function correctly, even if not as much as computers do. In performing its tasks, though the brain is tolerant to noise and stochasticity, it still requires that those tasks happen in a very specific way. Asides, the paper is not an argument for randomness or stochasticity. > ” In the present state of knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities to understand the connection between the free decisions of particles and humans, but the free will of neither of these is accounted for by mere randomness."