ICBTheory

6 ms·

1.
by ICBTheory 10mo ago
I'd say that conclusion is a manifestation of pragmatic wisdom. Anyway: I agree. The paper certainly doesn't argue that AI is useless, but that autonomy in high-stakes domains is mathematically unsafe. In the text, I distinguish b
2.
by ICBTheory 10mo ago
Author here. This paper is Part III of a trilogy investigating the limits of algorithmic cognition. Given the recent industry signals regarding "scaling plateaus" (e.g., Sutskever etc.), I attempt to formalize why these limits app
3.
Formal Proof: LLM Hallucinations Are Structural, Not Statistical (Coq Verified)(philpapers.org)
2 points by ICBTheory 10mo ago|3 comments
4.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
And finally 7. On “But humans are finite too—so why not replicable?” Yes. Humans are finite. But we’re not symbol-bound, and we don’t wait for the frame to stabilize before we act.We move while the structure is still breaking, speak while
5.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
6. On “This is just a critique of current models—not AGI itself” No. This isn’t about GPT-4, or Claude, or whatever model’s in vogue this quarter. Neither is it about architecture. It’s about what no symbolic system can do—ever. If your sys
6.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
5. On “Kolmogorov and Chaitin are misused” It’s a fair concern.Chaitin does get thrown around too easily — usually in discussions that don’t need him. But that’s not what’s happening here. – Kolmogorov shows that most strings are incompress
7.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
4. On “This is just the No Free Lunch Theorem again” Well … not quite. The No Free Lunch theorem says no optimizer is universally better across all functions. That’s an averaging result. But this paper is not at all about average-case optim
8.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
3. On “He redefines AGI to make his result inevitable” Sure. I redefined AGI. By using… …the definition from OpenAI, DeepMind, Anthropic, IBM, Goertzel, and Hutter. So unless those are now fringe newsletters, the definition stands: - A gen
9.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
2. On “This is just philosophy with no testability” Yes, the paper is also philosophical. But not in the hand-wavy, incense-burning sense that’s being implied. It makes a formal claim, in the tradition of Gödel, Rice, and Chaitin: Certain c
10.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
1. On “The brain obeys physics, physics is computable—so AGI must be possible” This is the classical foundational syllogism of computationalism. In short: 1.The brain obeys the laws of physics. 2.The laws of physics are (in principl
11.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Hey all, apologies for the delayed response. I was on a flight, then had guests, then had to make some rapid decisions involving actual real-world complexity (the kind that is not easily tokenized). I’ve now had time to read through the t
12.
AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity
41 points by ICBTheory 1y ago|80 comments
13.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
You’re misreading what I’m doing, and I suspect you’re also misdefining what a “proof” in this space needs to be. I’m not assuming humans exceed the Turing computable. I’m not using human behavior as a proof of AGI’s impossibility. I’m doin
14.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
You’re flipping the logic. I’m not assuming humans are beyond Turing-computable and then using that to prove that AGI can’t be. I’m saying: here is a provable formal limit for algorithmic systems ->symbolic containment. That’s theorem-le
15.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Yes, of course — if you define Ω² as “English + All of Science,” then congratulations, you have defined an unbounded oracle. But you’re just shifting the burden. No sysem starting from Ω₁ can generate Ω₂ unless Ω₂ is already implicit. ... I
16.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
The claim isn’t that humans maintain a consistent metascience. In fact, quite the opposite. Frame jumps happen precisely because human cognition is not locked into a consistent formal system. That’s the point. It breaks, drifts, mutates. No
17.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
No problem here is you proof - although a bit long: 1. THEOREM: Let a semantic frame be defined as Ω = (Σ, R), where Σ is a finite symbol set and R is a finite set of inference rules. Let Ω′ = (Σ′, R′) be a candidate successor frame. Defin
18.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Wow, that is a great advice. Never heard of them - and they seem to fit perfectly into the whole concept THANK YOU! :-)
19.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Very good point. I in fact had thought of describing the problem from a systems theoretical perspective as this is another way to combine different paths into a common principle That was a sketch, in case you are into these kind of approac
20.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
1. I appreciate the comparison — but I’d argue this goes somewhat beyond the No Free Lunch theorem. NFL says: no optimizer performs best across all domains. But the core of this paper doesnt talk about performance variability, it’s abou
21.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Oh no, I am not at all trying to find an explanation of why this is (qualia etc.). There is simply no necessity for that. It is interesting, but not part of the scientific problem that i tried to find an answer to. The proof (all three of t
22.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Why? 1. Basically because physical laws obviously allow more than algorithmic cognition and problem solving. (And also: I am bound by thermodynamics as my mother in Law is, still i get disarranged by her mere presence while I always have
23.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Just to make sure I understand: –Are we treating an arbitrary ontological assertion as if it’s a formal argument that needs to be heroically refuted? Or better: is that metaphysical setup an argument? If that’s the game, fine. Here we go: –
24.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Correct: Shannon entropy originally measures statistical uncertainty over a fixed symbol space. When the system is fed additional information/data, then entropy goes down, uncertainty falls. This is always true in situations where the
25.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Thanks — and yes, Penrose’s argument is well known. But this isn’t that, as I’m not making a claim about consciousness or invoking quantum physics or microtubules (which, I agree, are highly speculative). The core of my argument is based on
26.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Sure I can (and thanks for writing) Well, given the specific way you asked that question I confirm your self assertion - and am quite certain that your level of Artificiality converges to zero, which would make you a GI without A... - You
27.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
I guess so too... but whatever it is: it cannot possibly be something algorithmic. Therefore it doesn't matter in terms of demonstrating that AI has a boundary there, that cannot be transcended by tech, compute, training, data etc.
28.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
Hi and thanks for engaging :-) Well, it in fact depends on what intelligence is to your understanding: -If it intelligence = IQ, i.e. the rational ability to infer, to detect/recognize and extrapolate patterns etc, then AI is or will s
29.
AGI is Mathematically Impossible 2: When Entropy Returns(philarchive.org)
205 points by ICBTheory 1y ago|415 comments
30.
by ICBTheory 1y ago
This paper presents a theoretical proof that AGI systems will structurally collapse under certain semantic conditions — not due to lack of compute, but because of how entropy behaves in heavy-tailed decision spaces. The idea is called IOpen

More ›