4 ms·

The notion is AFAIS that a deterministic algorithm is obviously not reasoning, and a deterministic algorithm interspersed with dice rolls is obviously not reaso

The notion is AFAIS that a deterministic algorithm is obviously not reasoning, and a deterministic algorithm interspersed with dice rolls is obviously not reasoning either. Of course, some would beg to differ. It's quite common nowadays to believe that we are something like the latter.

pishpash 2y ago
Why is a deterministic algorithm not reasoning? Reasoning is very deterministic.
- tananan 2y ago
  It's not about (in-)determinism really, it's about the algorithm part. An algorithm that does something can in principle be ran by someone who doesn't know what the algorithm does. You could have a kid calculate an integral by giving it a sequence of directions whose purpose it doesn't understand (e.g. cut out some cardboard that matches the shape, put it on one side of the scale, place enough unit cardboard pieces on the other side until they are even, then tell me how many pieces you put). Reasoning has more to do with how the problem came about. A person had to come against a certain problem, figure out a way in which they can solve it, then apply the (perhaps algorithmic) solution. The algorithmic part is only an artifact.
  - pishpash 2y ago
    I think you overlook how algorithms come about. How does GPT write novel code, which are algorithms?
    - tananan 2y ago
      Not sure I track. It would help to know where you're coming from. Given a long enough life-span, a lot of pencil and paper, and some dice, I could do the forward passes of GPT and "write novel code", without there having been any reasoning about the code I'm writing down - I wouldn't even need to know what the code is about.
      - XenophileJKO 2y ago
        I mean in theory I could sit and calculate electrical and chemical potentials and interactions and figure out what your next comment will be.
        tananan 2y ago
        Hard disagree ;)
        anonzzzies 2y ago
        if we knew you were religious, which we would do if we had a mapping of your brain, we would have known you were going to make this comment
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    But isn't figuring out a way to solve also algorithmic? In a lot of cases it is simply bruteforce trying out different things based on the concepts you know about and mixing them.
    - tananan 2y ago
      You are right that relevant memories and analogous experiences come up and are used as building blocks in our evaluation/exploration of a problem, but it doesn't seem to me an algorithmic procedure at all. You can trace out your journey in solving a problem, in retrospect, but could you encode it into a "solving-a-problem" algorithm? I think you could extract some kind of generic template for problem solving: you come up with an idea, you evaluate whether it is the solution, you adjust the idea if not. But this is a template, not an algorithm. Coming up with an idea has to do with filtering the old and new memories/perceptions that come to mind: does this one seem right? or this one? Evaluating whether it is right is also an active process of asking questions. It involves memory (of the problem to be solved), attention (to the potential solution), judgement (do they fit together?), etc. None of these are a predetermined sequence of steps you apply mechanically, such as the child "solving an integral" above.* *Of course, the child is problem-solving in the sense that it's trying its best to follow your instructions. "Did I cut it right?" "Are the scales even?" But this is not the problem of "solving an integral" to which it is completely oblivious to.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        I think it can be an algorithm, it just that the algorithm will be a very complex one compromised of many different algorithms. It's not an algorithm anyone could practically follow in their lifetime. But there's plenty of algorithms people can't follow in real life.
        tananan 2y ago
        If all one has is hammers, one can start seeing nails everywhere. A screw? That's just a nail which will damage the wood. A tomato? That's just a soft screw which splatters. Etc. What purpose does seeing everything through the lens of an algorithm serve? Is the movement of an electron an algorithm? Is a polar planimeter an algorithm? [0] We design algorithms to solve certain problems. It's part of our problem solving activity. But for what purpose would we go around, assuming things that don't look like algorithms are actually algorithms that are just outside of our reach? This doesn't solve a practical problem, so of what use is that, and where does it lead? My long-winded answer is: We derive satisfaction from being in principle powerful. Our mechanistic/computational knowledge of nature allows us to bend certain parts of it to our will. If there are parts we cannot control, it's at least consoling that we in principle could know/control them. So we stretch computational/algorithmic terms as far as we possibly can. In the end, it envelops us as subjects. We end up in a rather cliche epiphenomenalism + causal determinism worldview: - "Yeah, we have experiences, but they're just inefficacious artifacts of underlying chemistry." - "You - the person who is reasoning - don't actually know what reasoning is like, it's really a very complex algorithm which we could never know or follow." The only way such an uninspiring outlook can subsist is because it jives well with some modern dreams: - "We only need X more compute and Y more years to bend Z part of nature to our will and bring utopia." (cue all the AI hype, see relevant frontpage entry [1]) - "If we're just a machine then maybe we can hack-reward-centers/optimize-drug-concoction/upload-to-mainframe-for-immortality" (cue quasi-immortality pitches and externally-enforced-happines pipe-dreams) - "If I'm just a machine then I'm not responsible for my shortcomings - they're just the outcome of my wiring I cannot influence." (a nice supplement for absolving oneself from responsibility - to oneself) - "If all is mechanical, then I'm just a temporarily embarrassed sovereign over everything. After all, if I just knew the mechanism behind things, then I could bend it to my will." - "I have to believe this because it is obviously true." (maybe the saddest of them all, since it promises nothing except the joy of being right and having others be wrong. it also seeds the others) [0] http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/brains-dont-have-to-be-computers-purple.html http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/brains-dont-ha... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813268
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  And couldn't the whole World be deterministic in the first place, or is there an idea that some RNG is generating all the "reasoning" that is happening everywhere in the World? And if it's RNG, how could RNG be possibly creating all this reasoning (like some people want to believe quantum mechanics possibly enables consciousness on some odd levels).
- ActorNightly 2y ago
  There is a difference between determinism in the sense of given a certain input, you allways get a certain output, and determinism in the sense of given a certain input, and knowledge of the sub universe in which the problem applies, get a certain output. I.e an agent that can reason can deterministically figure out that the most probable way of getting information to complete the answer would be to go out on google and do searches, but we don't deterministically know what the information that exists at that point and time on google, so the answer could be different.
amelius 2y ago
> a deterministic algorithm interspersed with dice rolls is obviously not reasoning either. There are multiple ways to explain to you that you are wrong. If I roll some dice to choose which way I will use to explain it to you, then why is this not reasoning?

pishpash 2y ago

Why is a deterministic algorithm not reasoning? Reasoning is very deterministic.

tananan 2y ago
It's not about (in-)determinism really, it's about the algorithm part. An algorithm that does something can in principle be ran by someone who doesn't know what the algorithm does. You could have a kid calculate an integral by giving it a sequence of directions whose purpose it doesn't understand (e.g. cut out some cardboard that matches the shape, put it on one side of the scale, place enough unit cardboard pieces on the other side until they are even, then tell me how many pieces you put). Reasoning has more to do with how the problem came about. A person had to come against a certain problem, figure out a way in which they can solve it, then apply the (perhaps algorithmic) solution. The algorithmic part is only an artifact.
- pishpash 2y ago
  I think you overlook how algorithms come about. How does GPT write novel code, which are algorithms?
  - tananan 2y ago
    Not sure I track. It would help to know where you're coming from. Given a long enough life-span, a lot of pencil and paper, and some dice, I could do the forward passes of GPT and "write novel code", without there having been any reasoning about the code I'm writing down - I wouldn't even need to know what the code is about.
    - XenophileJKO 2y ago
      I mean in theory I could sit and calculate electrical and chemical potentials and interactions and figure out what your next comment will be.
      - tananan 2y ago
        Hard disagree ;)
        anonzzzies 2y ago
        if we knew you were religious, which we would do if we had a mapping of your brain, we would have known you were going to make this comment
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  But isn't figuring out a way to solve also algorithmic? In a lot of cases it is simply bruteforce trying out different things based on the concepts you know about and mixing them.
  - tananan 2y ago
    You are right that relevant memories and analogous experiences come up and are used as building blocks in our evaluation/exploration of a problem, but it doesn't seem to me an algorithmic procedure at all. You can trace out your journey in solving a problem, in retrospect, but could you encode it into a "solving-a-problem" algorithm? I think you could extract some kind of generic template for problem solving: you come up with an idea, you evaluate whether it is the solution, you adjust the idea if not. But this is a template, not an algorithm. Coming up with an idea has to do with filtering the old and new memories/perceptions that come to mind: does this one seem right? or this one? Evaluating whether it is right is also an active process of asking questions. It involves memory (of the problem to be solved), attention (to the potential solution), judgement (do they fit together?), etc. None of these are a predetermined sequence of steps you apply mechanically, such as the child "solving an integral" above.* *Of course, the child is problem-solving in the sense that it's trying its best to follow your instructions. "Did I cut it right?" "Are the scales even?" But this is not the problem of "solving an integral" to which it is completely oblivious to.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      I think it can be an algorithm, it just that the algorithm will be a very complex one compromised of many different algorithms. It's not an algorithm anyone could practically follow in their lifetime. But there's plenty of algorithms people can't follow in real life.
      - tananan 2y ago
        If all one has is hammers, one can start seeing nails everywhere. A screw? That's just a nail which will damage the wood. A tomato? That's just a soft screw which splatters. Etc. What purpose does seeing everything through the lens of an algorithm serve? Is the movement of an electron an algorithm? Is a polar planimeter an algorithm? [0] We design algorithms to solve certain problems. It's part of our problem solving activity. But for what purpose would we go around, assuming things that don't look like algorithms are actually algorithms that are just outside of our reach? This doesn't solve a practical problem, so of what use is that, and where does it lead? My long-winded answer is: We derive satisfaction from being in principle powerful. Our mechanistic/computational knowledge of nature allows us to bend certain parts of it to our will. If there are parts we cannot control, it's at least consoling that we in principle could know/control them. So we stretch computational/algorithmic terms as far as we possibly can. In the end, it envelops us as subjects. We end up in a rather cliche epiphenomenalism + causal determinism worldview: - "Yeah, we have experiences, but they're just inefficacious artifacts of underlying chemistry." - "You - the person who is reasoning - don't actually know what reasoning is like, it's really a very complex algorithm which we could never know or follow." The only way such an uninspiring outlook can subsist is because it jives well with some modern dreams: - "We only need X more compute and Y more years to bend Z part of nature to our will and bring utopia." (cue all the AI hype, see relevant frontpage entry [1]) - "If we're just a machine then maybe we can hack-reward-centers/optimize-drug-concoction/upload-to-mainframe-for-immortality" (cue quasi-immortality pitches and externally-enforced-happines pipe-dreams) - "If I'm just a machine then I'm not responsible for my shortcomings - they're just the outcome of my wiring I cannot influence." (a nice supplement for absolving oneself from responsibility - to oneself) - "If all is mechanical, then I'm just a temporarily embarrassed sovereign over everything. After all, if I just knew the mechanism behind things, then I could bend it to my will." - "I have to believe this because it is obviously true." (maybe the saddest of them all, since it promises nothing except the joy of being right and having others be wrong. it also seeds the others) [0] http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/brains-dont-have-to-be-computers-purple.html http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/brains-dont-ha... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813268
mewpmewp2 2y ago
And couldn't the whole World be deterministic in the first place, or is there an idea that some RNG is generating all the "reasoning" that is happening everywhere in the World? And if it's RNG, how could RNG be possibly creating all this reasoning (like some people want to believe quantum mechanics possibly enables consciousness on some odd levels).
ActorNightly 2y ago
There is a difference between determinism in the sense of given a certain input, you allways get a certain output, and determinism in the sense of given a certain input, and knowledge of the sub universe in which the problem applies, get a certain output. I.e an agent that can reason can deterministically figure out that the most probable way of getting information to complete the answer would be to go out on google and do searches, but we don't deterministically know what the information that exists at that point and time on google, so the answer could be different.

amelius 2y ago

> a deterministic algorithm interspersed with dice rolls is obviously not reasoning either. There are multiple ways to explain to you that you are wrong. If I roll some dice to choose which way I will use to explain it to you, then why is this not reasoning?