6 ms·

They wrote another paper on this topic, the summary of which is that an AI capable of human level conversations is impossible because: "This is (1) because the

by simonh 5y ago

They wrote another paper on this topic, the summary of which is that an AI capable of human level conversations is impossible because: "This is (1) because there are no traditional explicitly designed mathematical models that could be used as a starting point for creating such programs; and (2) because even the sorts of automated models generated by using machine learning, which have been used successfully in areas such as machine translation, cannot be extended to cope with human dialogue. If this is so, then we can conclude that a Turing machine also cannot possess AGI, because it fails to fulfil a necessary condition thereof." https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05833 https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05833 In other words it can't ever be done because we haven't done it yet. QED. How stuff like this gets to come out of U Buffalo is beyond me. At first I suspected it might have come out of a religious think tank, but no.

The_rationalist 5y ago
What is the mathematical model used for designing linux or chromium or any kind of hyper-complex software? None, there is no need for a specific mathematical models in general and it's very cringe to claim otherwise. Sure mathematical models can help in the specific and in the general but there is no set of open problems in mathematics that lead to an impossibility of making AGI. Sure p!= np but it would be ridiculous to think that brains can bypass algorithmic complexity. The real problem is that we haven't found the winning lottery ticket software and this software spoiler alert is not at all only made of neural networks
Stupulous 5y ago
>If this is so, then we can conclude that a Turing machine also cannot possess AGI, because it fails to fulfil a necessary condition thereof. If your conclusion implies the existence of computation beyond Turing machines, you should probably find an example or check your assumptions.
- simonh 5y ago
  My conclusion or theirs? I’m not sure what you mean.
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    I'm responding to their claim in agreement with you.
- User23 5y ago
  By definition the computable functions are those that can be computed by a Turing machine or equivalent apparatus, so talking about "computation beyond Turing machines" is incoherent. However, uncomputable functions not only exist, but are the overwhelming majority of functions. This suggests that at least some aspects of reality might only be accurately described by uncomputable functions. How could uncomputable functions exist in an entirely computable reality?
  - CrazyStat 5y ago
    Do uncomputable functions actually "exist" in reality in any meaningful sense, or are they just mathematical abstractions?
    - doganulus 5y ago
      You need to start with the assumption that an infinite set exists (Axiom of Infinity) for uncomputable functions (and other weird mathematical things). Such concepts cannot appear in a finite universe.
    - Isinlor 5y ago
      You are asking a question that does not have an answer, because "exist" is not well-defined. But if you want to know whether an arbitrary JavaScript in your browser will stop or not, well you can not know that for all scripts people can throw at you. In this sense uncomputable functions do exist. BTW - The field trying to deal with defining what exist means is called ontology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
      - CrazyStat 5y ago
        The JavaScript argument doesn't really get at the point I was trying to make (poorly, probably). The parent was arguing that since almost all functions are uncomputable, "some aspects of reality might only be accurately described by uncomputable functions." This seems unlikely to me. Functions are a mathematical abstraction. Almost all of those functions are uncomputable, but what does the universe care? In what manner could the universe be organized in such a way as to depend on an uncomputable function? Perhaps a better question for my above post would have been: Can we imagine any empirical experiment to distinguish between a universe that depends on uncomputable functions and one that does not? Edit: And if not, in what sense can the universe actually depend on an uncomputable function if we can't distinguish?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Turing machines can’t generate their own true randomness, so they are incomplete.
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    I believe whether there is a deterministic system underlying quantum behavior is still an open question. My suspicion is that nothing can produce true randomness, in whioh case Turing machines are incomplete only for nonexistent computations. If I'm wrong, Turing machines still feel the effects of true randomness at a greater degree than the brain (compare the size of an axon with silicon), though my assumption that everything in the universe can be modeled in a computer falls through.
jmull 5y ago
I’m still thinking there may be a religious angle to this somewhere. It’s so full of unquestioned unstated assumptions and pseudo-analysis.
- MetricExpansion 5y ago
  I think any argument against the possibility of developing AGI is going to have it. The argument has to be either: 1) there’s something non-material about human intelligence (basically, there’s a soul), or 2) something about the processes that created a completely material human intelligence is impossible in principle to reproduce, either implicitly or explicitly. (1) has the obvious religious angle, but (2) tends to be what’s trotted out when (1) is too overly religious. With (2), the usual supporting reason is that the conditions are too complex. The problem is that the fundamental rules are just those of physics, which are “simple”. And we have to remember that the initial conditions of the universe were also “simple” and not intelligently set up in a way that could be predicted to create intelligence. It was just a bunch of initially formless matter evolving over time. By closing the door on even implicit use of physics (which created our own intelligence), which we don’t know enough to rule out completely, there’s the feeling that there’s some kind of magic dust that has to be part of the process or the initial conditions. That would disagree with our current understanding of the laws of physics and early development of the universe. Ultimately, the real motivation is the desire to maintain the feeling that humans are somehow “special” in the universe.

by simonh 5y ago

The_rationalist 5y ago

What is the mathematical model used for designing linux or chromium or any kind of hyper-complex software? None, there is no need for a specific mathematical models in general and it's very cringe to claim otherwise. Sure mathematical models can help in the specific and in the general but there is no set of open problems in mathematics that lead to an impossibility of making AGI. Sure p!= np but it would be ridiculous to think that brains can bypass algorithmic complexity. The real problem is that we haven't found the winning lottery ticket software and this software spoiler alert is not at all only made of neural networks

Stupulous 5y ago

>If this is so, then we can conclude that a Turing machine also cannot possess AGI, because it fails to fulfil a necessary condition thereof. If your conclusion implies the existence of computation beyond Turing machines, you should probably find an example or check your assumptions.

simonh 5y ago
My conclusion or theirs? I’m not sure what you mean.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  I'm responding to their claim in agreement with you.
User23 5y ago
By definition the computable functions are those that can be computed by a Turing machine or equivalent apparatus, so talking about "computation beyond Turing machines" is incoherent. However, uncomputable functions not only exist, but are the overwhelming majority of functions. This suggests that at least some aspects of reality might only be accurately described by uncomputable functions. How could uncomputable functions exist in an entirely computable reality?
- CrazyStat 5y ago
  Do uncomputable functions actually "exist" in reality in any meaningful sense, or are they just mathematical abstractions?
  - doganulus 5y ago
    You need to start with the assumption that an infinite set exists (Axiom of Infinity) for uncomputable functions (and other weird mathematical things). Such concepts cannot appear in a finite universe.
  - Isinlor 5y ago
    You are asking a question that does not have an answer, because "exist" is not well-defined. But if you want to know whether an arbitrary JavaScript in your browser will stop or not, well you can not know that for all scripts people can throw at you. In this sense uncomputable functions do exist. BTW - The field trying to deal with defining what exist means is called ontology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
    - CrazyStat 5y ago
      The JavaScript argument doesn't really get at the point I was trying to make (poorly, probably). The parent was arguing that since almost all functions are uncomputable, "some aspects of reality might only be accurately described by uncomputable functions." This seems unlikely to me. Functions are a mathematical abstraction. Almost all of those functions are uncomputable, but what does the universe care? In what manner could the universe be organized in such a way as to depend on an uncomputable function? Perhaps a better question for my above post would have been: Can we imagine any empirical experiment to distinguish between a universe that depends on uncomputable functions and one that does not? Edit: And if not, in what sense can the universe actually depend on an uncomputable function if we can't distinguish?
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Turing machines can’t generate their own true randomness, so they are incomplete.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  I believe whether there is a deterministic system underlying quantum behavior is still an open question. My suspicion is that nothing can produce true randomness, in whioh case Turing machines are incomplete only for nonexistent computations. If I'm wrong, Turing machines still feel the effects of true randomness at a greater degree than the brain (compare the size of an axon with silicon), though my assumption that everything in the universe can be modeled in a computer falls through.

jmull 5y ago

I’m still thinking there may be a religious angle to this somewhere. It’s so full of unquestioned unstated assumptions and pseudo-analysis.

MetricExpansion 5y ago
I think any argument against the possibility of developing AGI is going to have it. The argument has to be either: 1) there’s something non-material about human intelligence (basically, there’s a soul), or 2) something about the processes that created a completely material human intelligence is impossible in principle to reproduce, either implicitly or explicitly. (1) has the obvious religious angle, but (2) tends to be what’s trotted out when (1) is too overly religious. With (2), the usual supporting reason is that the conditions are too complex. The problem is that the fundamental rules are just those of physics, which are “simple”. And we have to remember that the initial conditions of the universe were also “simple” and not intelligently set up in a way that could be predicted to create intelligence. It was just a bunch of initially formless matter evolving over time. By closing the door on even implicit use of physics (which created our own intelligence), which we don’t know enough to rule out completely, there’s the feeling that there’s some kind of magic dust that has to be part of the process or the initial conditions. That would disagree with our current understanding of the laws of physics and early development of the universe. Ultimately, the real motivation is the desire to maintain the feeling that humans are somehow “special” in the universe.