3 ms·
Well no. If you create a machine that produces output indistinguishable from the output of things we "know" can "reason" aka "humans". Then I would call that re
by ninetyninenine 2y ago
Well no. If you create a machine that produces output indistinguishable from the output of things we "know" can "reason" aka "humans". Then I would call that reasoning.
If the output has a low probability of occuring by random chance then it must be reason.
>For example, if you prove that the reasoning is somehow embedded as a spatial in-network set of dimensions rather than in-time, wouldn't that be literally equivalent to "it just knows the patterns"? What would that term substitution actually achieve?
I mean, this is a method many humans use to reason themselves.
- wruza 2y agoA side effect of this is that a zip.exe that unzips a zip into a book that contains text indistiguishable from the output of a human must reason too. From what I can see, you’re only massaging semantics. That is uninteresting.
- ninetyninenine 2y agoNo. I clearly said it must output novel things that aren’t part of the input. In your example the book is the training data or aka the input.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- wruza 2y agoAgreed, that was a wrong example.