4 ms·
I also was of the opinion that there was the possibility to reach general AI in the future, but now I will take time to read this paper. I'm not skeptical about
by GTP 7y ago
I also was of the opinion that there was the possibility to reach general AI in the future, but now I will take time to read this paper. I'm not skeptical about it because we know your assumption number 3 to be false: there are mathematical functions that aren't computable. For a proof you can look here [1] or google it.
[1] https://www.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/198271819 https://www.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/198271819
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoThanks. My assumptions are imprecise, because as I mentioned I am no academic. So I appreciate your correction. To make the post stronger, replace assumption 3 with "All of the mathematical rules which underlie physics are computable." IMO, this doesn't materially affect the plausibility of these assumptions.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago>> "All of the mathematical rules which underlie physics are computable." I really have to ask- what are those mathematical rules that underlie physics and how do you know that they are computable?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoAll of chemistry and physics as far as we're aware are described by mathematical rules that can be computed. Things like the strong and weak forces, gravity, etc. all have mathematical descriptions. There may be other, non-computable aspects to physics, but I am not aware of them if so.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago>> There may be other, non-computable aspects to physics, but I am not aware of them if so. In that case, what do you base your assumption (3) on?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoLet's consolidate this discussion into the other thread, since it seems like you're offering the same objections here and there. :)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]