4 ms·
The neural net itself needs something to run in (some universe). If the argument is that it needs a smaller or simpler universe than ours: first of all it is si
by Aardwolf 4y ago
The neural net itself needs something to run in (some universe). If the argument is that it needs a smaller or simpler universe than ours: first of all it is simulating our universe so all complexity of ours is included anyway, but also, maybe a neural net in a big chaotic universe is more likely than a tiny universe designed to perfectly fit one neural net
- bottlepalm 4y agoNeural nets as an abstract concept don’t necessarily need to be built with atoms, just the substance of the external universe which may be far simpler.
- Aardwolf 4y agoI also didn't imply this neural network's universe needs atoms, but it needs to run the computation somehow, the computation itself is the complexity, no matter with what physics or other manifestation it shows up And if it is simulating our universe's atoms, then that part of it basically is our atoms. But is a neural net doing that really simpler than the atoms just running with a more direct mathematical model?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bottlepalm 4y agoYou don’t need atoms, just a universe with the minimal blocks to build a turning machine. Like building a computer in Minecraft they could conceivably run these neural nets without any sense of ‘atoms’. The point is the outside universe could have extremely simple design.