5 ms·

It is impossible to enumerate all the things that we humans do. However, we can enumerate all the things that we create can do. Every system we create has its l

It is impossible to enumerate all the things that we humans do. However, we can enumerate all the things that we create can do. Every system we create has its limitation due to the limitations that we create in them. All systems we create cannot exceed those limitations. We make machines that are stronger, faster, and can have much finer motor control than we have as individual abilities. No machine we have created has the dexterity that we have. Every computational system can be analysed in fine detail to determine the limits that we have built into them. It may take an enormous amount of time and effort to do so, but we can do it. No computational system that we have built is able to exceed the limited programming we place in it. There is an enormous amount of hype that goes on about the current generation (and future generations) of these systems, but all of them are in the abilities that we have programmed into them. They are in all essentials completely stupid (in the worst possible way - non-sentient, non-intelligent). Every logic error that we have made in building these systems is hidden in that code. One day, those errors will come back and bite us, but there is nothing intelligent or sentient in these systems. It is our errors, for which we are responsible, that will cause those problems. We can use them as adjuncts to our sentience and intelligence - but all they are are tools, never anything more. However, if we cede control to these systems, we are ceding control to something that is no better than fire (a good servant - a horrendous master). After forty years, I have seen far too often, hype by humans convince other humans to cede control to the systems that humans have made and the result has been various levels of chaos. If anything, what we need to be careful of is how humans use these systems against other humans. This is the perennial problem that we face as we build new technology.

ben_w 3y ago
Mostly I agree with you, but > However, we can enumerate all the things that we create can do. Not really, no. Even before AI, "Turing Complete" makes things extremely hard to enumerate; see Busy Beaver numbers for how small a system can be and still outside our ability to fully comprehend — needing to use up-arrow notation because exponentials aren't big enough is always good for a laugh.
- oldandtired 3y ago
  With your example of "Turing Complete", we know what cannot be done and in this way, we have enumerated the things that can be done, if you like. You appreciate the humour required for the up-arrow notation - a very human quality. You example of the Busy Beaver numbers, which was a recent interesting read, is a good example of what I was trying to point out. We have a definition and even if we cannot enumerate each number, we discuss and think about these in a rational way. At the moment, I am quite interested in Computer Algebra Systems (of which there are a variety) and I find it interesting just how limited these systems are and just how difficult it is to program into them the capabilities that humans use to solves various problems. The various discussions have been quite enlightening. Mathematics is an interesting subject and I think shows up the intractability of ever getting that highly feared singularity. All artificial computing systems are limited in ways we are not. Your "Turing Machine" example is one such case. The Halting Problem being a class example. I think that far too often, we fail to recognise that what we create is not that great. We often stand in awe of the things we make without comprehending that these things are a very poor reflection of what is around us and what we ourselves are. Every time some hype comes about these artificial stupidity systems, I look at my youngest granddaughter and see in her, capabilities that far exceed anything that we have created. Even my old buck of a goat demonstrates capabilities far, far in excess of anything we have created in all of our computational systems. As I have said elsewhere here, we have to be careful that we do not cede control of our lives to systems that we think are more than they really are - systems that are limited, fragile and prone to failure.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > All artificial computing systems are limited in ways we are not. Your "Turing Machine" example is one such case. The Halting Problem being a class example. You appear to be asserting that humans can tell if a loop will end, when that loop is defined so that if it does it doesn't and if it doesn't it does. > Even my old buck of a goat demonstrates capabilities far, far in excess of anything we have created in all of our computational systems. How so? Not saying this is necessarily false — GPT-3 is about as complex as the brain of a rodent, so it wouldn't exactly be surprising even though the LLM only does text and completely different AI do other things — but still, what exactly do goats do that's "far in excess"?

ben_w 3y ago

Mostly I agree with you, but > However, we can enumerate all the things that we create can do. Not really, no. Even before AI, "Turing Complete" makes things extremely hard to enumerate; see Busy Beaver numbers for how small a system can be and still outside our ability to fully comprehend — needing to use up-arrow notation because exponentials aren't big enough is always good for a laugh.

oldandtired 3y ago
With your example of "Turing Complete", we know what cannot be done and in this way, we have enumerated the things that can be done, if you like. You appreciate the humour required for the up-arrow notation - a very human quality. You example of the Busy Beaver numbers, which was a recent interesting read, is a good example of what I was trying to point out. We have a definition and even if we cannot enumerate each number, we discuss and think about these in a rational way. At the moment, I am quite interested in Computer Algebra Systems (of which there are a variety) and I find it interesting just how limited these systems are and just how difficult it is to program into them the capabilities that humans use to solves various problems. The various discussions have been quite enlightening. Mathematics is an interesting subject and I think shows up the intractability of ever getting that highly feared singularity. All artificial computing systems are limited in ways we are not. Your "Turing Machine" example is one such case. The Halting Problem being a class example. I think that far too often, we fail to recognise that what we create is not that great. We often stand in awe of the things we make without comprehending that these things are a very poor reflection of what is around us and what we ourselves are. Every time some hype comes about these artificial stupidity systems, I look at my youngest granddaughter and see in her, capabilities that far exceed anything that we have created. Even my old buck of a goat demonstrates capabilities far, far in excess of anything we have created in all of our computational systems. As I have said elsewhere here, we have to be careful that we do not cede control of our lives to systems that we think are more than they really are - systems that are limited, fragile and prone to failure.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > All artificial computing systems are limited in ways we are not. Your "Turing Machine" example is one such case. The Halting Problem being a class example. You appear to be asserting that humans can tell if a loop will end, when that loop is defined so that if it does it doesn't and if it doesn't it does. > Even my old buck of a goat demonstrates capabilities far, far in excess of anything we have created in all of our computational systems. How so? Not saying this is necessarily false — GPT-3 is about as complex as the brain of a rodent, so it wouldn't exactly be surprising even though the LLM only does text and completely different AI do other things — but still, what exactly do goats do that's "far in excess"?