File: _16698ee9-bca4-4f0e-9d89-(...).jpg (199 KB, 1024x1024)

199 KB JPG

It already exists... how do we stabilize the tower and make sure it lasts long enough and is ready to receive the overlay accessible to us consciously without shreddering!

>>536503298
>What is Gödel's incompleteness theorem
>What is the uncertainty principle
Already proven that such things cannot exists.

>>536503298
Make me an algorithm that can predict if a given program will crash

>>536503298
Literally impossible. You can't map infinite variance to a discrete set of functions.

>>536503525
The propaganda stories about our cherished future are getting so ridiculously infeasible and against laws of reality these days. Tells us what's about to happen.
Yet there are always some who lap it all up. What the fuck.

>>536503525
Gödel was a dumb jew and the uncertainty principle is also wrong

>>536503792

wait until elon gets into quantum computing with xai

File: waiting.gif (44 KB, 220x295)

44 KB GIF

>>536504300
Since you are obviously smarter than Gödel, please share your disprove.

>>536503298
>but we knw it exists because we do everything to find it.
non sequitur

>>536503298
>I have an ML model that has 100% accuracy on the test set
And I can make a test set that you don't get 100% accuracy on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_machine_learning

>>536504300
If you have a proof that Godel's incompleteness theorem is wrong, please present it for the class. If you require formatting that cannot be made on /pol/, feel free to make a thread on /sci/ and link it here. Such a thread would certainly be on-topic for the board. Alternatively, write it up in Latex and post a catbox of the compiled PDF.

I look forward to peer reviewing your work.

>>536503585

No general procedure for bug checks will do.
Now, I won’t just assert that, I’ll prove it to you.
I will prove that although you might work till you drop,
you cannot tell if computation will stop.

For imagine we have a procedure called P
that for specified input permits you to see
whether specified source code, with all of its faults,
defines a routine that eventually halts.

You feed in your program, with suitable data,
and P gets to work, and a little while later
(in finite compute time) correctly infers
whether infinite looping behavior occurs.

If there will be no looping, then P prints out ‘Good.’
That means work on this input will halt, as it should.
But if it detects an unstoppable loop,
then P reports ‘Bad!’ — which means you’re in the soup.

Well, the truth is that P cannot possibly be,
because if you wrote it and gave it to me,
I could use it to set up a logical bind
that would shatter your reason and scramble your mind.

Here’s the trick that I’ll use — and it’s simple to do.
I’ll define a procedure, which I will call Q,
that will use P’s predictions of halting success
to stir up a terrible logical mess.

For a specified program, say A, one supplies,
the first step of this program called Q I devise
is to find out from P what’s the right thing to say
of the looping behavior of A run on A.

If P’s answer is ‘Bad!’, Q will suddenly stop.
But otherwise, Q will go back to the top,
and start off again, looping endlessly back,
till the universe dies and turns frozen and black.

>>536504865

And this program called Q wouldn’t stay on the shelf;
I would ask it to forecast its run on itself.
When it reads its own source code, just what will it do?
What’s the looping behavior of Q run on Q?

If P warns of infinite loops, Q will quit;
yet P is supposed to speak truly of it!
And if Q’s going to quit, then P should say ‘Good.’
Which makes Q start to loop! (P denied that it would.)

No matter how P might perform, Q will scoop it:
Q uses P’s output to make P look stupid.
Whatever P says, it cannot predict Q:
P is right when it’s wrong, and is false when it’s true!

I’ve created a paradox, neat as can be —
and simply by using your putative P.
When you posited P you stepped into a snare;
Your assumption has led you right into my lair.

So where can this argument possibly go?
I don’t have to tell you; I’m sure you must know.
We've proved that there just cannot possibly be
a procedure that acts like the mythical P.

You can never find general mechanical means
for predicting the acts of computing machines;
it’s something that cannot be done. So we users
must find our own bugs. Our computers are losers!

>>536504813
>If you have a proof that Godel's incompleteness theorem is wrong
Wrong, no, but merely stupid
>umm we cant know everything with our current mathematical models, I am so smart

>>536503298
Do you even know what Machine Learning is?
At the theoretical best, it can be 100% accurate TO SHIT IT HAS ALREADY SEEN.
Abstracting into new stuff, that would take an AGI that can come up with rules and then follow those rules, not mere Machine Learning.
Otherwise you get the most perfect parrot ever devised, but it can't innovate, and it's prone to fucking up due to not having enough data when you get into too niche and specific shit.
It's going to be AMAZING for REDUCING the number of jobs in many fields, but we'll need some humans around until we get AGI at least.

>>536503298
U mix a lot of things together kid.

Also some tasks are 100% and others can only approximate towards 99,9%…

Its also usually not one formula. As of now its mostly a sequence of steps.

>>536505646
You should read the theorem again. You have fundamentally misunderstood the premise.