20 ms·

Where are you going to get all that time and space to build a lookup table? Are you sure you're able to measure all state at enough precision to make an accurat

• ben_w 3y ago
  Doesn't matter given the original statement spawning this subthread was: > People can not be reduced to lookup tables even in theory
  • aruss 3y ago
    Then I would say your theoretical model is wrong or incomplete or makes for a circular argument (it's an assumption and not proven that finite matter evolving through time reduces to a lookup table).
  • mistermann 3y ago
    What theories are you using to solve for: - consciousness? - the unknown? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency - the misunderstood? https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ The Science of the Gaps will do I suppose? Culture could do it though I think.
    • ben_w 3y ago
      Can you rephrase that? It currently reads like shifting goalposts, and I'd like to guess that was not your intention…
      • mistermann 3y ago
        Any theory that asserts exhaustive coverage of people would need to take all relevant aspects of reality into consideration, so I suggested some of the trickiest things that are relevant. Unfortunately for me, they are so tricky that they "don't count" (try, genuinely, to model the reality bending capability of people in a theory, I would love to see that!).
        • ben_w 3y ago
          > model the reality bending capability of people Much to the disappointment of my teenage self who would really have liked the shape-shifting spell to work, I don't see any evidence we can bend reality. -- > consciousness? I think this is a red herring. We can talk about P-Zombies, but we lack the means to determine if some random human (let alone AI) is one. > the unknown? > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency > the misunderstood? What about them? I still don't know why these are an interesting problem in this scenario. > https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/perception-problem/ Isn't one of the big criticisms of AI at the moment the fact that they do this slight more than humans, and we can point and laugh at them? (While conveniently forgetting that half of us were Yani and the other half Laurel, that half of us were blue and black while the other half were white and gold, etc.) > The Science of the Gaps will do I suppose? A reference to the ever diminishing role for God in the late 19th century onwards, but I'm not sure how you're using it here? > Culture could do it though I think. Banks? Sure, but fictional.
          • mistermann 3y ago
            All this considered, and during this process, did you happen to form any conclusions (or ~"update weights"), consciously or unconsciously (in reality)? I think it's interesting how the human mind can "know" whether things that are unknown can be modeled, or not, and I happen to believe that this phenomenon occurs within reality (where I believe the comments within this thread are), bending that portion of it. I also believe that this phenomenon is fundamental. But then, there "is" "no evidence" for any of this...and we all know what that means!