6 ms·

You’re vastly oversimplifying humans. That’s like saying a physics simulation is basically an entire sub universe on your computer. It sounds true, but it’s j

by dartos 3y ago

You’re vastly oversimplifying humans. That’s like saying a physics simulation is basically an entire sub universe on your computer. It sounds true, but it’s just not. It’s a gross oversimplification I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI. No matter how much data we give it, no matter how big it is, it’ll never be “human intelligent” since it’s impossible for us to describe a loss function for being human or describe being human in a dataset. We’ll never be able to evaluate it, since we can’t fully describe what it means to communicate because to do that we’d need to communicate it and that process can’t be fully self describing. Not to say AI isn’t useful or impressive, but it’ll never be comparable to humans, truly.

andsoitis 3y ago
> I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. Gödel's incompleteness theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...
nebulousthree 3y ago
It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be convincing. That takes a lot less data and is much more tolerant to simplifications. Just look at the claims that were thrown around GPT's abilities at first.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Timon3 3y ago
> I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI. Gödels theorems are about formal axiomatic theories. To apply them to human intelligence, you'd have to prove that human intelligence springs from formal axiomatic theories. I don't think this is possible, which would mean that you can't apply the theorems. > No matter how much data we give it, no matter how big it is, it’ll never be “human intelligent” since it’s impossible for us to describe a loss function for being human or describe being human in a dataset. How do you know? If we were able to fully record whatever is going on in someones brain, we should be able to build a loss function for it. How do you know that this is fundamentally impossible? > We’ll never be able to evaluate it, since we can’t fully describe what it means to communicate because to do that we’d need to communicate it and that process can’t be fully self describing. Why not? Again, if you argue that this is due to Gödels theorems, you'd have to prove that our communication itself is based on formal axiomatic theories.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > To apply them to human intelligence, you'd have to prove that human intelligence springs from formal axiomatic theories. It applies to everything we could say or think or measure about intelligence (and anything else). All that probably "spring from" things that don't (rely on our axioms), but they are not accessible to us, so that doesn't really help.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > It applies to everything we could say or think or measure about intelligence (and anything else). How do you know? Gödels proof doesn't support your claim since it only applies to formal axiomatic theories. Do you have an alternative proof for his theorems also applying to all other systems?
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      I know by repeatedly by starting anywhere at all and asking "but why is that?", if you will. Furthermore by pondering it and realizing that even if I ever found a perfectly harmonious explanation for all my observations, I would have no clue if reality wasn't even more complex beyond of what I can perceive of it. So, I'm still only really dealing with my own observations and narratives, and even if I got the answer perfectly right, even if God told me yes, this is how it works, all of it to the last detail, and I understood all of it, I couldn't be sure if there isn't more to it. Maybe gravity makes things fall down, sure, but maybe there are tiny kobolds in the spaces between all particles with little clipboards that calculate the correct motion and cast spells to move them. I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I honestly tried and could not find bedrock. Can you name (or even just think) something that doesn't rest on something else or an assumption? I honestly can't. > Gödels proof doesn't support your claim since it only applies to formal axiomatic theories. "only"? I'd say those axioms are a superset of the sloppy stuff we throw around in our day to day, like "this is a chair"; if we drilled down on our informal speech and thoughts, we'd at best arrive at such axioms, which ultimately rest on things we simply posited (because otherwise there would be nothing to think about, and no way to think about it -- I'm not knocking it per se, just the idea that the quest for truth could possibly ever be complete, which makes it no less noble IMO).
ben_w 3y ago
> I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI. If it was a nail in the coffin for AGI, then humans, who have exactly the same limit, wouldn't count as a general intelligence. While such a definition would be possible, I don't think it's useful.
blincoln 3y ago
Nature managed to bootstrap human intelligence even though nature is not even a conscious entity, let alone a conscious entity that can describe loss functions and datasets. That seems to me like pretty solid evidence that those things are not hard requirements for creating human-level intelligence. It sounds like maybe you're arguing that humans will never be able to conclusively determine if an artificial intelligence is equivalent to a human intelligence, on the basis of a theory that a human can't describe precisely what it is to have human-equivalent intelligence from inside the system of a human brain. Humans build things that are too complex for any one person to hold the entirety of in their conscious mind all the time, by working together, or by organizing it into simpler pieces. But even setting that tangent aside, if your theory is accurate, would you accept that an AGI could prove it was more intelligent than a human by successfully describing human intelligence and how to create an equivalent AGI?
- dartos 3y ago
  Maybe? But the way AI is made nowadays is by using a human made metric to determine the quality and/or correctness of a model’s output. Because we’re unable to make a perfect, totally correct metric, I find it unlikely that any of the current generation of AI will get anywhere near human level. Again, not that these new models aren’t extremely useful or impressive, but not really “intelligent” as a human is.
CuriouslyC 3y ago
If the physics simulation accurately reflects the dynamics of physical systems at the large scale and your goal is to see what the stars look like in the future, who cares if it doesn't actually have the entire universe?
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
>"I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI." Technically, this is also a nail in the coffin for humans. Humans are also inside a system. Even back with Kant, humans have been trying to figure out how to see beyond their own systems.

by dartos 3y ago

andsoitis 3y ago

> I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. Gödel's incompleteness theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_...

nebulousthree 3y ago

It doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be convincing. That takes a lot less data and is much more tolerant to simplifications. Just look at the claims that were thrown around GPT's abilities at first.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Timon3 3y ago

> I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI. Gödels theorems are about formal axiomatic theories. To apply them to human intelligence, you'd have to prove that human intelligence springs from formal axiomatic theories. I don't think this is possible, which would mean that you can't apply the theorems. > No matter how much data we give it, no matter how big it is, it’ll never be “human intelligent” since it’s impossible for us to describe a loss function for being human or describe being human in a dataset. How do you know? If we were able to fully record whatever is going on in someones brain, we should be able to build a loss function for it. How do you know that this is fundamentally impossible? > We’ll never be able to evaluate it, since we can’t fully describe what it means to communicate because to do that we’d need to communicate it and that process can’t be fully self describing. Why not? Again, if you argue that this is due to Gödels theorems, you'd have to prove that our communication itself is based on formal axiomatic theories.

johnnyworker 3y ago
> To apply them to human intelligence, you'd have to prove that human intelligence springs from formal axiomatic theories. It applies to everything we could say or think or measure about intelligence (and anything else). All that probably "spring from" things that don't (rely on our axioms), but they are not accessible to us, so that doesn't really help.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > It applies to everything we could say or think or measure about intelligence (and anything else). How do you know? Gödels proof doesn't support your claim since it only applies to formal axiomatic theories. Do you have an alternative proof for his theorems also applying to all other systems?
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    I know by repeatedly by starting anywhere at all and asking "but why is that?", if you will. Furthermore by pondering it and realizing that even if I ever found a perfectly harmonious explanation for all my observations, I would have no clue if reality wasn't even more complex beyond of what I can perceive of it. So, I'm still only really dealing with my own observations and narratives, and even if I got the answer perfectly right, even if God told me yes, this is how it works, all of it to the last detail, and I understood all of it, I couldn't be sure if there isn't more to it. Maybe gravity makes things fall down, sure, but maybe there are tiny kobolds in the spaces between all particles with little clipboards that calculate the correct motion and cast spells to move them. I'm not trying to be a smartass, but I honestly tried and could not find bedrock. Can you name (or even just think) something that doesn't rest on something else or an assumption? I honestly can't. > Gödels proof doesn't support your claim since it only applies to formal axiomatic theories. "only"? I'd say those axioms are a superset of the sloppy stuff we throw around in our day to day, like "this is a chair"; if we drilled down on our informal speech and thoughts, we'd at best arrive at such axioms, which ultimately rest on things we simply posited (because otherwise there would be nothing to think about, and no way to think about it -- I'm not knocking it per se, just the idea that the quest for truth could possibly ever be complete, which makes it no less noble IMO).

ben_w 3y ago

> I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI. If it was a nail in the coffin for AGI, then humans, who have exactly the same limit, wouldn't count as a general intelligence. While such a definition would be possible, I don't think it's useful.

blincoln 3y ago

Nature managed to bootstrap human intelligence even though nature is not even a conscious entity, let alone a conscious entity that can describe loss functions and datasets. That seems to me like pretty solid evidence that those things are not hard requirements for creating human-level intelligence. It sounds like maybe you're arguing that humans will never be able to conclusively determine if an artificial intelligence is equivalent to a human intelligence, on the basis of a theory that a human can't describe precisely what it is to have human-equivalent intelligence from inside the system of a human brain. Humans build things that are too complex for any one person to hold the entirety of in their conscious mind all the time, by working together, or by organizing it into simpler pieces. But even setting that tangent aside, if your theory is accurate, would you accept that an AGI could prove it was more intelligent than a human by successfully describing human intelligence and how to create an equivalent AGI?

dartos 3y ago
Maybe? But the way AI is made nowadays is by using a human made metric to determine the quality and/or correctness of a model’s output. Because we’re unable to make a perfect, totally correct metric, I find it unlikely that any of the current generation of AI will get anywhere near human level. Again, not that these new models aren’t extremely useful or impressive, but not really “intelligent” as a human is.

CuriouslyC 3y ago

If the physics simulation accurately reflects the dynamics of physical systems at the large scale and your goal is to see what the stars look like in the future, who cares if it doesn't actually have the entire universe?

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

>"I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI." Technically, this is also a nail in the coffin for humans. Humans are also inside a system. Even back with Kant, humans have been trying to figure out how to see beyond their own systems.