4 ms·

It's unclear what this has to do with A.I. Even humans are limited by the halting problem or other undecidable questions. So why is this called a "theorem"? Th

by iwwr 16y ago

It's unclear what this has to do with A.I. Even humans are limited by the halting problem or other undecidable questions. So why is this called a "theorem"? There is yet no proof that there are classes of problems inherently better solvable by the human mind. Or otherwise, that the human is something extra, computationally-wise, than a Turing machine.

Avshalom 16y ago
>>So why is this called a "theorem"? It's not A theorem, it's an informal name for a class of theorems. Specifically theorems that imply creativity will never be useless.
baddox 16y ago
I think the point is that, for some problems, no computation can perform better than human beings. A strong AI would perform equally as well as humans on these problems, but not better. Of course, a "strong AI" in this usage would probably have to not only be computationally equivalent to the human mind, but also be provided with the same insanely complex and chaotic input that the human mind operates on. To truly mimic human "creativity," this strong AI would probably need all the qualitative experience and memories that human beings have. It would probably need to undergo development in a dynamic social environment, or at least have the memory of doing so.
- memetichazard 16y ago
  It doesn't seem like this is really an AI vs. Humans issue. Rather, it's saying, regardless if you have some optimal algorithm X for a class of "Full Employment" problems, it is always possible to have an algorithm that performs better for a specific case at the cost of worse performance for other cases.
wisty 16y ago
It states that some problems will never have a perfect solution. It would be possible, I guess, for a strong AI to pump out stronger and stronger AI, so that humans will be unlikely to solve any problem before the stronger and stronger AI solve it. Until that happens, it will always be possible to write a better space-optimizing compiler. Afterwards, it will still be possible, but the strong AI will beat you to the punch.

by iwwr 16y ago

Avshalom 16y ago

>>So why is this called a "theorem"? It's not A theorem, it's an informal name for a class of theorems. Specifically theorems that imply creativity will never be useless.

baddox 16y ago

I think the point is that, for some problems, no computation can perform better than human beings. A strong AI would perform equally as well as humans on these problems, but not better. Of course, a "strong AI" in this usage would probably have to not only be computationally equivalent to the human mind, but also be provided with the same insanely complex and chaotic input that the human mind operates on. To truly mimic human "creativity," this strong AI would probably need all the qualitative experience and memories that human beings have. It would probably need to undergo development in a dynamic social environment, or at least have the memory of doing so.

memetichazard 16y ago
It doesn't seem like this is really an AI vs. Humans issue. Rather, it's saying, regardless if you have some optimal algorithm X for a class of "Full Employment" problems, it is always possible to have an algorithm that performs better for a specific case at the cost of worse performance for other cases.

wisty 16y ago

It states that some problems will never have a perfect solution. It would be possible, I guess, for a strong AI to pump out stronger and stronger AI, so that humans will be unlikely to solve any problem before the stronger and stronger AI solve it. Until that happens, it will always be possible to write a better space-optimizing compiler. Afterwards, it will still be possible, but the strong AI will beat you to the punch.