soist

5 ms·

1.
by soist 2y ago
Most practitioners seem to understand that what they are doing is creating executable models and they don't confuse the model based on numeric observations with the actual reality. This is why I very much do not like all the AI hype an
2.
by soist 2y ago
This is a common retort. You can read my other comments if you want to understand why you're not really addressing my points because I have already addressed how reductionism does not apply to living organisms but it does apply to comp
3.
by soist 2y ago
Rephrase your question. I don't know what you're asking.
4.
by soist 2y ago
What value is being optimized and how do you know it is too much or not enough?
5.
by soist 2y ago
And I am saying they are confused because they are attributing personal characteristics to computers and software. By spelling out what computers are doing it becomes very obvious that there is nothing that can be aware of any experiences i
6.
by soist 2y ago
Just making sure no one is confused by common computationalist sophistry and how they attribute personal characteristics to computers and software. People can have and can create experiences, computers can only execute their programmed inst
7.
by soist 2y ago
I am familiar with the literature on reinforcement learning.
8.
by soist 2y ago
There is no such thing as too much optimization. Early stopping is to prevent overfitting to the training set. It's a trick just like most advances in deep learning because the underlying mathematics is fundamentally not suited for cre
9.
by soist 2y ago
AlphaZero did not create any experiences. AlphaZero was software written by people to play board games and that's all it ever did.
10.
by soist 2y ago
Every software platform is essentially a digital panopticon and as AI gets deployed more widely in the real world this will also be increasingly true for non-software interactions. My guess is everyone is eventually going to carry an AI &qu
11.
Turing Categories (2019)(golem.ph.utexas.edu)
1 points by soist 2y ago|0 comments
12.
by soist 2y ago
The Church-Turing thesis is a meta-mathematical statement and it neither has a proof nor disproof. In any case, this discussion has run its course.
13.
by soist 2y ago
Unknown physics is happening all the time almost by definition but as I said in another thread, good luck with your computations.
14.
by soist 2y ago
I expect claims to be backed by evidence that is consistent with our current state of knowledge. I have seen no such evidence so that's why I asked for references. In any case, this discussion has run its course, best of luck to you an
15.
by soist 2y ago
Do you have a reference for this equivalency?
16.
by soist 2y ago
Well, that's essentially a logical tautology. Everything works according to the known laws of physics but it's certainly true that everything must also work with unknown laws of physics because of basic human ignorance.
17.
by soist 2y ago
I think I understand. So what you're saying is that every function that can be implemented with computers must be computable. Your claim is that the brain is actually a computable function, can you tell me which one it is using your fa
18.
by soist 2y ago
Rule 110 can be specified with a rewrite system, also known as cellular automata: https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3248 . Cellular automatons have a correspondence with contextual grammars: https://www.cis.upenn.ed
19.
by soist 2y ago
Whether something is physical or not is orthognal to whether it computes or not. You're the one who brought up physics so that's why I showed why your logic was invalid. My contention was that calling something a computer without
20.
by soist 2y ago
Oh I see, so it's magic.
21.
by soist 2y ago
You'll have to define your terms first. Physicists now believe there is such a thing as dark matter and that there are objects so massive that no amount of observation can ever make sense of how massive they are because it is impossibl
22.
by soist 2y ago
Just trying to figure out how rigorously people have thought about this. A computer with an undefined instruction set seems somewhat useless as a computer.
23.
by soist 2y ago
Yes. To validate the claim would require not only a formal instruction set but also the code to account for all sorts of cognitive states and processes. I'm not ruling out that some people are indeed programmable computers but I would
24.
by soist 2y ago
Steam engines and gears were used for explaining the mind as well but those turned out to be incorrect metaphors.
25.
by soist 2y ago
Yes, I understand why some scientists claim that nature is "just" some computer but no one still has given an answer to my very basic question: what is the instruction set that the people who claim they are computers are using to
26.
by soist 2y ago
That's ok. It seems like LLMs know all about simplicial complexes and homology so I'll spend my time on more fruitful endeavors but thanks for the advice.
27.
by soist 2y ago
I am familiar with the computational theory of cognition. What I wanted to know was whether there were any people who actually claimed their thinking is nothing more than programmed computation. I am very curious to know if they have mapped
28.
by soist 2y ago
Extremely weird to me when people compare themselves to computers. What is that philosophical stance called and do you have any references for long form writing which makes the case for why people are "just" computers?
29.
by soist 2y ago
LLMs can be whatever labels people choose to attribute to the system executing the instructions to generate "answers". It is fundamentally a category error to attribute any meaning to whatever arithmetic operations the hardware is
30.
by soist 2y ago
How did you reach these conclusions and have you validated them by asking these superior artificial agents about whether you're correct or not?

More ›