4 ms·

It seems like model learning is too optimized for continuity, eg. continuous variables can be subdivided infinitely, where logic and algorithms are firm rather

It seems like model learning is too optimized for continuity, eg. continuous variables can be subdivided infinitely, where logic and algorithms are firm rather than fuzzy like this. Learning agents arguably need to be able to generalize from fuzzy to firm concepts to properly learn logic and algorithms. Whether that can happen automatically by scaling or whether that requires a fundamental shift is unclear.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Except if we take humans as example, we do not "generalize from fuzzy to firm". We don't handle firm, we approximate it with fuzzy. Which is why formal logic makes for a fine family of puzzle games, but fares extremely badly at describing reality and reasoning about reality. Better suited mathematical frameworks are probabilistic in nature, and so happen to be fundamentally continuous.
- naasking 3y ago
  > We don't handle firm We absolutely do handle firm. Mathematics, logic, morality are all examples that have plenty of firm classifications, as is typical, everyday reasoning, eg. I would state that I am naasking in this thread and I am not TeMPOraL, and I would not state that I am 99.999% probably naasking but 0.001% possibly TeMPOraL. > Which is why formal logic makes for a fine family of puzzle games, but fares extremely badly at describing reality and reasoning about reality. The device you're reading this on would suggest quite strongly that this conclusion is wrong.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > Mathematics, logic, morality are all examples that have plenty of firm classifications Which tend to fail to apply to reality, unless relaxed or turned into continuities. > as is typical, everyday reasoning, eg. I would state that I am naasking in this thread and I am not TeMPOraL, and I would not state that I am 99.999% probably naasking but 0.001% possibly TeMPOraL. Everyday reasoning is a shorthand, not formal logic. You stating you're naasking and not TeMPOraL is not a formal logic statement, nor is a fully discrete one - not unless you really believe this to be 100% likely, and do not admit the possibility of any of things like: - You dreaming or imagining it; - You're being a brain in a vat; - You being delirious or otherwise mentally compromised; - Your senses actually working correctly, and not making shit up; All of which, in reality, have non-zero likelihood. Applying discrete logic to real life forces you to accept things as certain even if evidence for them is less likely than our understanding of reality being correct - or conversely, rounding possible states of the universe down to impossible.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Except if we take humans as example, we do not "generalize from fuzzy to firm". We don't handle firm, we approximate it with fuzzy. Which is why formal logic makes for a fine family of puzzle games, but fares extremely badly at describing reality and reasoning about reality. Better suited mathematical frameworks are probabilistic in nature, and so happen to be fundamentally continuous.

naasking 3y ago
> We don't handle firm We absolutely do handle firm. Mathematics, logic, morality are all examples that have plenty of firm classifications, as is typical, everyday reasoning, eg. I would state that I am naasking in this thread and I am not TeMPOraL, and I would not state that I am 99.999% probably naasking but 0.001% possibly TeMPOraL. > Which is why formal logic makes for a fine family of puzzle games, but fares extremely badly at describing reality and reasoning about reality. The device you're reading this on would suggest quite strongly that this conclusion is wrong.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > Mathematics, logic, morality are all examples that have plenty of firm classifications Which tend to fail to apply to reality, unless relaxed or turned into continuities. > as is typical, everyday reasoning, eg. I would state that I am naasking in this thread and I am not TeMPOraL, and I would not state that I am 99.999% probably naasking but 0.001% possibly TeMPOraL. Everyday reasoning is a shorthand, not formal logic. You stating you're naasking and not TeMPOraL is not a formal logic statement, nor is a fully discrete one - not unless you really believe this to be 100% likely, and do not admit the possibility of any of things like: - You dreaming or imagining it; - You're being a brain in a vat; - You being delirious or otherwise mentally compromised; - Your senses actually working correctly, and not making shit up; All of which, in reality, have non-zero likelihood. Applying discrete logic to real life forces you to accept things as certain even if evidence for them is less likely than our understanding of reality being correct - or conversely, rounding possible states of the universe down to impossible.