3 ms·

Without reading the paper how the heck is agi mathematically impossible if humans are possible? Unless the paper is claiming humans are mathematically impossibl

Without reading the paper how the heck is agi mathematically impossible if humans are possible? Unless the paper is claiming humans are mathematically impossible? I’ll read the paper but the title comes off as out of touch with reality.

alganet 1y ago
What makes you think that human intelligence is based on mathematics?
- like_any_other 1y ago
  Because it's based on physics, which is based on mathematics. Alternately, even if we one day learn that physics is not reducible to mathematics, both humans and computers are still based on the same physics.
  - sampl3username 1y ago
    And the soul?
    - int_19h 1y ago
      So far, we have found no need for this hypothesis. (Aside from "explaining" why AI couldn't ever possibly be "really intelligent" for those who find this notion existentially offensive.)
      - alganet 1y ago
        "emergent superintelligent AI" is as much superstition as believing in imaterial souls. One company literally used the term "people spirits" to refer to how LLMs behave in their official communications. It's a cult. Like many cults, it tries to latch on science to give itself legitimacy. In this case, mathematics. It has happened before many times. You're trying to say that, because it's computers and stuff, it's science and therefore based on reason. Well, it's not. It's just a bunch of non sequitur.
        int_19h 1y ago
        I didn't say anything about "emergent superintelligent AI".
        alganet 1y ago
        I'm confused. We are on a comment section about a post with AGI in the title. The term is scientifically vague, but it is estabilished in the popular culture that it is related to superintelligence and emerging behavior. If you don't agree, you owe the reader a better definition. Given this context, if you're not talking about that, what are you talking about then?
        int_19h 1y ago
        The thread though is more broadly about AI in general. My remark was wrt the fact that talk of "souls" in context of AI usually boils down to drawing a red line between what AI could be even in principle, as humans (i.e. "no soul" -> "it's not actually intelligent" etc; some folk use "no qualia" to the same effect, and it's the same argument in disguise). The problem with it is that there's nothing about either AI or human intelligence so far that requires a concept such as soul, so religion aside, the only reason to reach for it is if you're trying to draw that line and running out of arguments as to why it should be there.
        alganet 1y ago
        I just asked some user "what makes you think the human brain is based on mathematics?" All this nonsense about souls was filled up by people trying to predict what my reasoning was, instead of _actually answering the question_ (which, apparently, can only be answered here _in opposition_ to something, not with plain honest words). I left the line to be drawn by whoever answered it, and the answers show an abundance of misunderstanding about science.
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      That would be nice. But as far as I know, this paper makes no supernatural claims.
  - alganet 1y ago
    You're mistaking the thing for the tool we use to describe the thing. Physics gives us a way to answer questions about nature, but it is not nature itself. It is also, so far (and probably forever), incomplete. Math doesn't need to agree with nature, we can take it as far as we want, as long as it doesn't break its own rules. Physics uses it, but is not based on it.
- mort96 1y ago
  I will answer under the metaphysical assumption that there is no immaterial "soul", and that the entirety of the human experience arises from material things governed by the laws of physics. If you disagree with this assumption, there is no conversation to be had. The laws of physics can, as far as I can tell, be described using mathematics. That doesn't mean that we have a perfect mathematical model of the laws of physics yet, but I see no reason to believe that such a mathematical model shouldn't be possible. Existing models are already extremely good, and the only parts which we don't yet have essentially perfect mathematical models for yet are in areas which we don't yet have the equipment necessary to measure how the universe behaves. At no point have we encountered a sign that the universe is governed by laws which can't be expressed mathematically. This necessarily means that everything in the universe can also be described mathematically. Since the human experience is entirely made up of material stuff governed by these mathematical laws (as per the assumption in the first paragraph), human intelligence can be described mathematically. Now there's one possible counter to this: even if we can perfectly describe the universe using mathematics, we can't perfectly simulate those laws. Real simulations have limitations on precision, while the universe doesn't seem to. You could argue that intelligence somehow requires the universe's seemingly infinite precision, and that no finite-precision simulation could possibly give rise to intelligence. I would find that extremely weird, but I can't rule it out a priori. I'm not a physicist, and I don't study machine intelligence, nor organic intelligence, so I may be missing something here, but this is my current view.
  - alganet 1y ago
    I'm not talking about soul. I'm just saying you're mistaking the thing for the the tool we use to describe the thing. I'm also not talking about simulations. Epistemologically, I'm talking about unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know, and we still don't know we don't know yet. Math and physics deal with known unknowns (we know we don't know) and known knowns (we know we know) only. Math and physics do not address unknown unknowns up until they become known unknowns (we did not tackle quantum up until we discover quantum). We don't know how humans think. It is a known unknown, tackled by many sciences, but so far, incomplete in its description. We think we have a good description, but we don't know how good it is.
geor9e 1y ago
The title is clickbait. He more ends up saying that AGI is practically impossible today, given all our current paradigms of how we build computers, algorithms, and neural networks. There's an exponential explosion in how much computation time it requires to match the out-of-frame leaps and bounds that a human brain can make with just a few watts of power, and researchers have no clever ideas yet for emulating that trait.
- fellowniusmonk 1y ago
  In the abstract it explicitly says current systems, the title is 100% click bait.
chmod775 1y ago
> Without reading the paper how the heck is agi mathematically impossible if humans are possible? Unless the paper is claiming humans are mathematically impossible? Humans are provably impossible to accurately simulate using our current theoretical models which treat time as continuous. If we could prove that there's some resolution, or minimum time step, (like Planck Time) below which time does not matter and we update our models accordingly, then that might change*. For now time is continuous in every physical model we have, and thus digital computers are not able to accurately simulate the physical world using any of our models. Right now we can't outright dismiss that there might be some special sauce to the physical world that digital computers with their finite state cannot represent. * A theory of quantum gravitation would likely have to give an answer to that question, so hold out for that.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  Finding something about physics that can't be perfectly represented is step one. Then we also need evidence it can't be approximated to arbitrary quality. And finally we need evidence that this physical effect is necessary for humans to think intelligently.

alganet 1y ago

What makes you think that human intelligence is based on mathematics?

like_any_other 1y ago
Because it's based on physics, which is based on mathematics. Alternately, even if we one day learn that physics is not reducible to mathematics, both humans and computers are still based on the same physics.
- sampl3username 1y ago
  And the soul?
  - int_19h 1y ago
    So far, we have found no need for this hypothesis. (Aside from "explaining" why AI couldn't ever possibly be "really intelligent" for those who find this notion existentially offensive.)
    - alganet 1y ago
      "emergent superintelligent AI" is as much superstition as believing in imaterial souls. One company literally used the term "people spirits" to refer to how LLMs behave in their official communications. It's a cult. Like many cults, it tries to latch on science to give itself legitimacy. In this case, mathematics. It has happened before many times. You're trying to say that, because it's computers and stuff, it's science and therefore based on reason. Well, it's not. It's just a bunch of non sequitur.
      - int_19h 1y ago
        I didn't say anything about "emergent superintelligent AI".
        alganet 1y ago
        I'm confused. We are on a comment section about a post with AGI in the title. The term is scientifically vague, but it is estabilished in the popular culture that it is related to superintelligence and emerging behavior. If you don't agree, you owe the reader a better definition. Given this context, if you're not talking about that, what are you talking about then?
        int_19h 1y ago
        The thread though is more broadly about AI in general. My remark was wrt the fact that talk of "souls" in context of AI usually boils down to drawing a red line between what AI could be even in principle, as humans (i.e. "no soul" -> "it's not actually intelligent" etc; some folk use "no qualia" to the same effect, and it's the same argument in disguise). The problem with it is that there's nothing about either AI or human intelligence so far that requires a concept such as soul, so religion aside, the only reason to reach for it is if you're trying to draw that line and running out of arguments as to why it should be there.
        alganet 1y ago
        I just asked some user "what makes you think the human brain is based on mathematics?" All this nonsense about souls was filled up by people trying to predict what my reasoning was, instead of _actually answering the question_ (which, apparently, can only be answered here _in opposition_ to something, not with plain honest words). I left the line to be drawn by whoever answered it, and the answers show an abundance of misunderstanding about science.
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    That would be nice. But as far as I know, this paper makes no supernatural claims.
- alganet 1y ago
  You're mistaking the thing for the tool we use to describe the thing. Physics gives us a way to answer questions about nature, but it is not nature itself. It is also, so far (and probably forever), incomplete. Math doesn't need to agree with nature, we can take it as far as we want, as long as it doesn't break its own rules. Physics uses it, but is not based on it.
mort96 1y ago
I will answer under the metaphysical assumption that there is no immaterial "soul", and that the entirety of the human experience arises from material things governed by the laws of physics. If you disagree with this assumption, there is no conversation to be had. The laws of physics can, as far as I can tell, be described using mathematics. That doesn't mean that we have a perfect mathematical model of the laws of physics yet, but I see no reason to believe that such a mathematical model shouldn't be possible. Existing models are already extremely good, and the only parts which we don't yet have essentially perfect mathematical models for yet are in areas which we don't yet have the equipment necessary to measure how the universe behaves. At no point have we encountered a sign that the universe is governed by laws which can't be expressed mathematically. This necessarily means that everything in the universe can also be described mathematically. Since the human experience is entirely made up of material stuff governed by these mathematical laws (as per the assumption in the first paragraph), human intelligence can be described mathematically. Now there's one possible counter to this: even if we can perfectly describe the universe using mathematics, we can't perfectly simulate those laws. Real simulations have limitations on precision, while the universe doesn't seem to. You could argue that intelligence somehow requires the universe's seemingly infinite precision, and that no finite-precision simulation could possibly give rise to intelligence. I would find that extremely weird, but I can't rule it out a priori. I'm not a physicist, and I don't study machine intelligence, nor organic intelligence, so I may be missing something here, but this is my current view.
- alganet 1y ago
  I'm not talking about soul. I'm just saying you're mistaking the thing for the the tool we use to describe the thing. I'm also not talking about simulations. Epistemologically, I'm talking about unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know, and we still don't know we don't know yet. Math and physics deal with known unknowns (we know we don't know) and known knowns (we know we know) only. Math and physics do not address unknown unknowns up until they become known unknowns (we did not tackle quantum up until we discover quantum). We don't know how humans think. It is a known unknown, tackled by many sciences, but so far, incomplete in its description. We think we have a good description, but we don't know how good it is.

geor9e 1y ago

The title is clickbait. He more ends up saying that AGI is practically impossible today, given all our current paradigms of how we build computers, algorithms, and neural networks. There's an exponential explosion in how much computation time it requires to match the out-of-frame leaps and bounds that a human brain can make with just a few watts of power, and researchers have no clever ideas yet for emulating that trait.

fellowniusmonk 1y ago
In the abstract it explicitly says current systems, the title is 100% click bait.

chmod775 1y ago

> Without reading the paper how the heck is agi mathematically impossible if humans are possible? Unless the paper is claiming humans are mathematically impossible? Humans are provably impossible to accurately simulate using our current theoretical models which treat time as continuous. If we could prove that there's some resolution, or minimum time step, (like Planck Time) below which time does not matter and we update our models accordingly, then that might change*. For now time is continuous in every physical model we have, and thus digital computers are not able to accurately simulate the physical world using any of our models. Right now we can't outright dismiss that there might be some special sauce to the physical world that digital computers with their finite state cannot represent. * A theory of quantum gravitation would likely have to give an answer to that question, so hold out for that.

Dylan16807 1y ago
Finding something about physics that can't be perfectly represented is step one. Then we also need evidence it can't be approximated to arbitrary quality. And finally we need evidence that this physical effect is necessary for humans to think intelligently.