2 ms·

>> If it stopped making mistakes and produced complete fully working programs, no, there would be no way to say it doesn't understand. There exist program synt

>> If it stopped making mistakes and produced complete fully working programs, no, there would be no way to say it doesn't understand. There exist program synthesis systems that always produce "complete fully working programs" and that in fact cannot make any mistakes because they are based on algorithms with strong theoretical guarantees (like mathematical proofs) of their correctness. You give them a set of examples and some "background knowledge" and they spit out a program that's consistent with the examples and the background knowledge, no ifs and buts and maybes. I could point you to several systems like that, if you wish, but first I want to make sure that we both agree what you are saying: a program synthesis system that never makes mistakes "understands". Is that right? Could you also please clarify what such a system "understands"? Then I'm happy to link you to some systems like the ones I'm talking about.

marcosdumay 4y ago
> a program synthesis system that never makes mistakes "understands" Yes, I'm saying if it satisfies random requirements and synthesizes full working programs, then it has some form of understanding in it. If creates that understanding through learning, it's very possibly a general form of AI (I'm not certain of this part). I've never seen any one that arrived at structure by learning. It's always programed in, what puts the intelligence on a very conventional place, and I doubt you'll disagree that it understands what it's doing.
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  Didn't you just shift the goal posts? You care about how the structure is arrived at? Anyway the systems I have in mind do learn their own structure, I know at least three that do that. But you're not going to get machine learning without predetermined structure. In Transformers, as in all neural nets, the structure is right there in the architecture of the neural net. So what kind of "learning" without "structure" exactly are you looking for?
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    > Didn't you just shift the goal posts? Nope, you changed the context from a zero-knowledge AI optimized for text into things that come with knowledge designed in. There is understanding embedded on the things with knowledge designed in, but the understanding is not done by the AI. Anyway, I'm surely curious about the systems that learn their own structure. You mean they learn the syntax rules? I'd say they have some understanding of the language syntax, but well, unless they can take a requirement and produce working code, they don't understand programing. (And well, if the requirement is in a formal language, they only understand formal transformations, that is, your AI understands compiling. What honestly, is quite limited, but would still be impressive.)
    - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
      I searched the thread for "zero-knowledge" and I can't find anyone having said anything like that before your above comment, and I can also see you jumping from "structure" to "knowledge" in the span of two comments, so I really think you are shifting the goal posts. More to the point, I don't think there were any goal posts at any point and you are simply prepared to make up new conditions for as long as it suits you. So, my apologies, but I must decline to share any pointers to systems or techniques etc. You seem to have made up your mind before you even see what I'm talking about, anyway.

marcosdumay 4y ago

> a program synthesis system that never makes mistakes "understands" Yes, I'm saying if it satisfies random requirements and synthesizes full working programs, then it has some form of understanding in it. If creates that understanding through learning, it's very possibly a general form of AI (I'm not certain of this part). I've never seen any one that arrived at structure by learning. It's always programed in, what puts the intelligence on a very conventional place, and I doubt you'll disagree that it understands what it's doing.

YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
Didn't you just shift the goal posts? You care about how the structure is arrived at? Anyway the systems I have in mind do learn their own structure, I know at least three that do that. But you're not going to get machine learning without predetermined structure. In Transformers, as in all neural nets, the structure is right there in the architecture of the neural net. So what kind of "learning" without "structure" exactly are you looking for?
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  > Didn't you just shift the goal posts? Nope, you changed the context from a zero-knowledge AI optimized for text into things that come with knowledge designed in. There is understanding embedded on the things with knowledge designed in, but the understanding is not done by the AI. Anyway, I'm surely curious about the systems that learn their own structure. You mean they learn the syntax rules? I'd say they have some understanding of the language syntax, but well, unless they can take a requirement and produce working code, they don't understand programing. (And well, if the requirement is in a formal language, they only understand formal transformations, that is, your AI understands compiling. What honestly, is quite limited, but would still be impressive.)
  - YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
    I searched the thread for "zero-knowledge" and I can't find anyone having said anything like that before your above comment, and I can also see you jumping from "structure" to "knowledge" in the span of two comments, so I really think you are shifting the goal posts. More to the point, I don't think there were any goal posts at any point and you are simply prepared to make up new conditions for as long as it suits you. So, my apologies, but I must decline to share any pointers to systems or techniques etc. You seem to have made up your mind before you even see what I'm talking about, anyway.