2 ms·

I dunno. The guy that's freebasing copium sounds more convincing. Sorry.

nyrikki 3y ago
Well as all you have as a response is an ad hominem you aren't the intended audience anyway. I would love to learn why I am wrong.
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  You are clearly a smart guy, you are also clearly on the far side of the spectrum. Since it took you a while to notice that I was yanking your chain. That's ok, I'm somewhat of a full spectrum spaz myself. The problem with smart people is that they have a very hard time to notice when their brain has sidestepped rational thought, and started to go into an emotional latent space. The reason for this is that your emotional life has no problem utilizing complex topics to shield itself from your conscious attention. Face it. There isn't anything special about what a bio-neuron does. We just choose to ignore a lot of the intricacies of the bio-neuron. Because it is clearly irrelevant in order to sidestep halting. If a task suffers from halts the NN will simply side step the problem. Just like us. We are at a stage of technological development. Where we need to effen stop, and put all our effort into alignment. You realize this is true inside that cholesterol bag you call a brain. Your brain is just doing gymnastics of a preeteen soviet girl level, to stop yourself from getting it. Just get it.
  - nyrikki 3y ago
    The halting problem is part of asymptotic analysis on this case. Just like with elementary limits you never reach it but you approach it. The halting problem on what we typically call computers decidable but not in practical time lines. The fact that a TM is not physically realizable doesn't change that claim. Logical conjunctions are an example of something that is difficult in PAC learning and we know it is at least super polynomial but we don't if there are tractable forms like Schaefer's dicotomy allowing for linear time solutions for HORNSat as an example. The tooling that works for asymptotic analysis on deterministic Turing machines does not transfer to biological nurons, because they simply aren't deterministic Turing machines. Neurobiologists are fully aware of the limitations of modeling cortical neurons as deterministic systems. While in pop science that difference may not be popular it is the general consensus of experts. Your claims that cortical neurons are the same as a deterministic Turing machine is not the best accepted theory today. In fact recent research says that qbits are a closer model to cortical neurons. You can't blindly carry over the properties of deterministic Turing machines to qbits. As non-deterministic Turing machine s are typically assigned to the special case of the type of NTM that defines the complexity class NP, I won't complicate the conversation with trying to explain the implications.
    - ImHereToVote 3y ago
      Here are some real challenges in creating intelligent agents, but none of that has anything to do with the halting problem. The reason you latch on to the strawman that I belive neurons are touring machines is because you want to win. I on the other hand, don't care about winning. I want to be right. The best way to be right is to change your mind immediately as you notice the flaws in your thinking. The halting problem, or some other theoretical and esoteric complexities of computer systems, have nothing to do with the fact that current LLMs are not simply stochastic parrots. This doesn't mean they are conscious. They can't be. Because they aren't even multi-modal yet for starters. But that has nothing to do with halts or qbits. I don't even know where that red herring came from. Lay of the Penrose juice. There is no evidence that mammalian brains are room temperature quantum annealers. Nor is there evidence We need to model complete biological neurons to do learning. What if it's just a question of scale? We don't know that it's not. If it is, we are in big trouble. Your argument is akin to saying that Gödel's incompleteness theorems, are the reason you can't complete your maths homework. Yes, in the "limit", it's true. But practically, we both know that homework can be solved.

Well as all you have as a response is an ad hominem you aren't the intended audience anyway. I would love to learn why I am wrong.

ImHereToVote 3y ago
You are clearly a smart guy, you are also clearly on the far side of the spectrum. Since it took you a while to notice that I was yanking your chain. That's ok, I'm somewhat of a full spectrum spaz myself. The problem with smart people is that they have a very hard time to notice when their brain has sidestepped rational thought, and started to go into an emotional latent space. The reason for this is that your emotional life has no problem utilizing complex topics to shield itself from your conscious attention. Face it. There isn't anything special about what a bio-neuron does. We just choose to ignore a lot of the intricacies of the bio-neuron. Because it is clearly irrelevant in order to sidestep halting. If a task suffers from halts the NN will simply side step the problem. Just like us. We are at a stage of technological development. Where we need to effen stop, and put all our effort into alignment. You realize this is true inside that cholesterol bag you call a brain. Your brain is just doing gymnastics of a preeteen soviet girl level, to stop yourself from getting it. Just get it.
- nyrikki 3y ago
  The halting problem is part of asymptotic analysis on this case. Just like with elementary limits you never reach it but you approach it. The halting problem on what we typically call computers decidable but not in practical time lines. The fact that a TM is not physically realizable doesn't change that claim. Logical conjunctions are an example of something that is difficult in PAC learning and we know it is at least super polynomial but we don't if there are tractable forms like Schaefer's dicotomy allowing for linear time solutions for HORNSat as an example. The tooling that works for asymptotic analysis on deterministic Turing machines does not transfer to biological nurons, because they simply aren't deterministic Turing machines. Neurobiologists are fully aware of the limitations of modeling cortical neurons as deterministic systems. While in pop science that difference may not be popular it is the general consensus of experts. Your claims that cortical neurons are the same as a deterministic Turing machine is not the best accepted theory today. In fact recent research says that qbits are a closer model to cortical neurons. You can't blindly carry over the properties of deterministic Turing machines to qbits. As non-deterministic Turing machine s are typically assigned to the special case of the type of NTM that defines the complexity class NP, I won't complicate the conversation with trying to explain the implications.
  - ImHereToVote 3y ago
    Here are some real challenges in creating intelligent agents, but none of that has anything to do with the halting problem. The reason you latch on to the strawman that I belive neurons are touring machines is because you want to win. I on the other hand, don't care about winning. I want to be right. The best way to be right is to change your mind immediately as you notice the flaws in your thinking. The halting problem, or some other theoretical and esoteric complexities of computer systems, have nothing to do with the fact that current LLMs are not simply stochastic parrots. This doesn't mean they are conscious. They can't be. Because they aren't even multi-modal yet for starters. But that has nothing to do with halts or qbits. I don't even know where that red herring came from. Lay of the Penrose juice. There is no evidence that mammalian brains are room temperature quantum annealers. Nor is there evidence We need to model complete biological neurons to do learning. What if it's just a question of scale? We don't know that it's not. If it is, we are in big trouble. Your argument is akin to saying that Gödel's incompleteness theorems, are the reason you can't complete your maths homework. Yes, in the "limit", it's true. But practically, we both know that homework can be solved.