3 ms·

The proof seems sound, but the premises appear to me to be overly restrictive. In particular, seeing that a ML-based AI can write arbitrary code, there's nothin

• vidarh 1y ago
  If such 2nd generation AI's are AGI, then their claim that "as we formally prove herein, creating systems with human(-like or -level) cognition is intrinsically computationally intractable" is false. Indeed, if their proof is true, they have a proof that the Church-Turing thesis is false, and that humans exceed the Turing computable, in which case they've upended the field of computational logic. Yet they assert that they believe a Turing complete system "is expressive enough to computationally capture human cognition". This would be a very silly belief to hold if their proof is true, as if that claim is true, then a human brain is existence proof that a computational device that can produce output identical to human cognition is possible, because a human brain would be one. They'd then need to explain why they think an equally powerful computational device can't be artificially created. If they want to advance a claim like this, they need to address this issue. Not only does their paper not address it, but they make assertions about Turing-equivalence that are false if their conclusions are true, which suggest they don't even understand the implications. Indeed, if they understood the implications of their claim, then a claim to have proven the Church-Turing thesis to be false and/or having proven that humans exceed the Turing computable ought to be front and center, as it'd be a far more significant finding than the one they claim. The paper is frankly an embarrassment.