enugu

6 ms·

31.
by enugu 2y ago
Yes, the Turing Test tries to give an operational definition of 'think'- can a computer give the same response as a thinking human. Further, we can even disallow decisions based on the human/machine signature. The computers d
32.
by enugu 2y ago
The Turing test is meant to see if computers can functionally replicate human thought (just focussing on textual conversations aspect for simplicity). The implications of passing the Turing Test are profound. Tricking a user with a 5 minute
33.
by enugu 2y ago
From what you write about macros, it hints at something like F-expressions and first class environments, though I am not sure if it actually does have it. I find the Kernel programming language to be inspiring. It is based on first class en
34.
by enugu 2y ago
Thanks, I am in the process of choosing a dataframe library and just naively assumed that the Rust interface would be statically typed.
35.
by enugu 2y ago
Polars is also usable as a Rust library. So, one can use that for static typing. Wonder what the downsides are - maybe losing access to the Python data science libraries.
36.
by enugu 2y ago
The core of the argument is simple diagonalization. We know that the problem of deciding if a program halts on some input is undecidable via computation. But suppose we have a partial program P(C,I), to decide halting/not-halting of a
37.
by enugu 2y ago
Hand-waving is not required as one is not going into microfoundations at all in the original argument. Someone making a thermodynamic argument for some conclusion, can later on try to speculate about how the conclusion is implemented with
38.
by enugu 2y ago
There is no special insight required here. Merely, a simple diagonalization argument ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43257904 ) which given a partial process to detect if a Turing machine halts, constructs a new machin
39.
by enugu 2y ago
Godel explicitly constructs the statements (which are essentially encoding a particular self-referential statement into logic). Penrose makes this more concrete where given an accurate, but necessarily partial procedure for detecting when a
40.
by enugu 2y ago
> You just can't tell if it is true. But in the Penrose argument, we can start from a true system and use reflection to arrive at another true statement which is not deducible from the original system. This is important to the argu
41.
by enugu 2y ago
That a knowably correct program cant simulate human reasoning is basically Godel's theorem. One can use a diagonalization argument similar to Godel's proof for programs which try to deciding which Turing machines halt. Given a pro
42.
by enugu 2y ago
Take a group of humans who each make observations and deductions, possibly faulty. Then, they do extensive checking of their conclusions by interacting with humans and computer proof assistants etc. Let us name this process as HC. A program
43.
by enugu 2y ago
He misrepresents Penrose's argument. I remember Scott Aaronson met Penrose later on, and there was a clarification though they still dont agree. In any case, here's a response to the questions (some responses are links to other co
44.
by enugu 2y ago
Penrose's argument does not require humans to prove every true statement. It is of the form - "Take a program P which can do whatever humans do and lets a generate a single statement which P cannot do, but humans can." The co
45.
by enugu 2y ago
Penrose does not require transcendent insights, but merely the ability to examine a finite knowably correct system to arrive at a correct statement which is not provable by the system. In fact, the construction of a Godel statement is mech
46.
by enugu 2y ago
The argument does not need to involve typical human behaviour with its faults. Because if a computer can simulate humans, it can also simulate humans with error correction and verification mechanisms. So, the computer should also be able to
47.
by enugu 2y ago
This is not a presupposition for Penrose, but a conclusion. The argument for the conclusion is the subject of several of his books. Secondly, the issue is not being a genius, but an ability to reflect. What can be shown, uncontroversially,
48.
by enugu 2y ago
No, Penrose is not dumb. He gives a very good argument in his books on limitations of AI, which is almost always misrepresented including in most of this thread. It is worth reading "Shadows of the Mind".
49.
by enugu 2y ago
Most startups are not building foundation models, but using them as an input. So commoditizing their complement can actually lead to more opportunities. Similarly, web hosting which required big investments previously is now commoditized af
50.
by enugu 2y ago
These prompts are fielding millions of queries. The test questions are a small part of them. Further, the server doesn't know if it got the right answer or not, so it can't even train on them. Whereas in the arrangement with the t
51.
by enugu 2y ago
They dont need them to be released(in the sense that you have a copy of the binary) to evaluate the model. The costly model training is useless unless access is given to people who pay for it. The models of Open AI, Claude and other major c
52.
by enugu 2y ago
> Either the eval maintainers need to be given the closed source models (which will likely never happen) Given that the models are released to public, the test maintainers can just run the private tests after release, either via the prom
53.
by enugu 2y ago
The peace that you refer to, involved a strong restriction placed by more powerful states which restricts nuclear weapons to a few states. This didn't involve any principle, but was an assertion of power. A figleaf of eventual disarmam
54.
by enugu 2y ago
The comment was not speaking in favour of restrictionism, (I don't support it) but what strategy the more powerful states will adopt. Regarding an increase in security with nukes, what you say applies for exceptions against a general n
55.
by enugu 2y ago
AI doesn't look it will be restricted to one country. A breakthrough becomes common place in a matter of years. So that paraphrase of Vance's remarks, if accurate, would mean that he is wrong. The danger of something like AI+drone
56.
by enugu 2y ago
Drone + AI weapons have horrible applications - remote assassinations to cause political chaos, a tyrant using it to selectively target those unfavourable to his rule without worrying about human checks, bigger nations exploiting smaller on
57.
by enugu 2y ago
This has been pursued by researchers like Rodney Brooks. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition
58.
by enugu 2y ago
There is a whole genre of essays like this talking about behaviour in a human specific way. But, I wish they engaged with the notions of the Church-Turing thesis and the Universal Turing Machine which indicates that any behaviour following
59.
by enugu 2y ago
Sure, you won't get exact predictions on which genetic codes are realized. Similar to how statistical physics doesn't predict microstates, but the macro picture is understood. Even that might be too ambitious for complicated syste
60.
by enugu 2y ago
This is an interesting analogy, thanks. But, doesn't this match the parent comment's point? If someone asks why a particular point and not, a nearby point is on the fractal, the reply is just that complicated program generated thi

More ›