>Dismantles you're AI wet dream>nothing personnel, kid >QED
You get no help
>>17012451what?
>>17012453you are fucking?
yor dum
I should really add Godel to my list of lightning rods for morons.
>>17012534>pseuderypost research
>>17012539There's nothing inherently wrong with any of the things in the image. The filename is just so I can easily find it.The point is those three things in the image are pseud magnets that mostly get discussed by people who don't know what they're talking about.
>>17012543I was gonna say, it's a cool picture, nothing necessarily pseud about it.
>>17012543>discussing not knowing what they are talking about what is the transformer?
>>17012548>it's a cool pictureThanks, I guess? I slapped it together a few months ago specifically to make a thread on the "unholy trinity of online pseudery." If someone reposted it unironically intending to connect the three things in some esoteric way I'd be mildly and dispassionately frustrated.
>>17012552If I understand your question correctly:You can talk about Tesla from a historical context or as a vehicle to introduce basic concepts in electrical engineering.You can talk about fractals from a pure math perspective or you can discuss iteration in natural or engineered systems.You can discuss the golden ratio/fib. sequence as a social phenomenon or as a vaguely interesting math quirk.Where the line is drawn is when people talk about the three as if they're tapping into some hidden secret to the universe or suppressed technologies. Much of the information you can find online about these three topics is just made up bullshit
>>17012562and why is Godel a pseud magnet? He claimed that you cannot mechanize math, he proved that. Then he claimed that you cannot mechanize a mind, and, in my opinion, he was right about it as well.
>>17012622Because of popular misinterpretations of his incompleteness theorem. Eg:>you cannot mechanize mathWhat does this even mean? What Godel proved comes down to the fact that, for any logical framework, there will exist things which are true but cannot be proven using that framework.What he proved is the necessity of axioms. There's no deep meaning here that actually changes our understanding of how the universe operates. This applies specifically to the models we use to describe that operation. Yet people extrapolate what he said to make bizarre claims he never made.
>>17012633>There's no deep meaning here that actually changes our understanding of how the universe operates. This applies specifically to the models we use to describe that operation. Yet people extrapolate what he said to make bizarre claims he never made.Read his work.
>>17012637Point to me where he's making the bizarre statements you're making.
>>17012633also, you sound like a larping pseud. Waste of time, really, but here you go. Night.
>>17012641Let me get this straight:You're taking what is explicitly a dumbed down summary that's intentionally playing fast and loose with the wording (not even originally written in English, btw) extremely literally and applying it in its broadest sense possible?He even tells you what the correct interpretation is on that very page: that you cannot formalize the totality of all mathematical evidence. This has nothing to do with how AI systems "do math" because they don't operate on a deterministic logic tree. They work on the very kinds of "inferences" which he said were necessary for mathematical reasoning.
>>17012649AI systems operate on deterministic logic tree. Automata and languages 101, pseud. His interpretation is:"... it will never be possible to replace the mathematician by a machine"
>>17012641>it will never be possible to replace a mathematician by a machineyet a mathematician is a machine. curious
>>17012657>AI systems operate on deterministic logic treeNo. They don't.
>>17012665DTM is equivalent to PTM, you can simulate most complex frontier models or whatever those things are called now with any computing process (Turing complete) and enough time, no qualitative difference.>>17012659>I assume mathematician is a machine, therefore mathematician is a machine.This is you, this is how you sound.
>>17012673>muh soul, god lets me prove theoremsnext
>disproves AGI>disproves simulation hypothesisNothin personnel reddit
>>17012715>shattering computationalism cultistsits so easy, yet so enjoyable
>>17012450to me godel implies self-modification is impossible(if you care about your intrinsic goals).which just means singleton won't immediately become god.
>>17012622no he merely proved that you cannot shortcut certain computations. incompleteness just means certain computations must be performed, and if they're recursing, they go on forever.
>>17012657we don't have deterministic ai yet, unless your logic tree idea means what alpha go did, i think they used monte carlo trees which aren't deterministic in that sense
>>17012811its Turing you are referring to, you MIDWIT PARROT LARPING PLEEEEEEEB
>>17012813randomness adds nothing to computability and vice versa.https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/pinewiki/Derandomization.htmlEQUIVALENT
>>17012817turing developed upon godel's work. incompleteness is sufficient to give you the hunch even without going into theory of computation.
>>17012829https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207540/
>>17012832you are gifted, though. unlike me. why are you wasting your talent here? you think humiliating midwits like me makes up for not having any achievements of your own?
>>17012837I am not gifted, and humiliating midwits gives me a sense of achievement. Fortunately the advent of llms, and the brain atrophy + psychotic narcissism they inflict, provides an unlimited stream of midwitted individuals to humiliate, it keeps you going, man.
>>17012828a randomized algo is not the same thing as a probabilistic one
>>17012849an algo is an algo
>>17012852that's like saying an llm is a human brain
>>17012853for a computationalist, yes. For Godel human brain >>> algo.
>>17012859You're making a leap from what Godel conjectured and what Godel actually proved.
>>17012884Ok. Registered.Time-lapse.
>>17012715>>17012804Yet he didn't do either of those things.There is nothing whatsoever in physics or computer science that renders it impossible for AGI to exist.
>>17012884where?>>17012892physics hasn't been proven to be computable, source of human intelligence remains unknown and might as well be non-algorithmic. Current AI is algorithmic. >There is nothing whatsoever in physics or computer science that renders it impossible for AGI to exist. Depends on what you mean by artificial, general intelligence exists and you can create it (by getting laid eg.), can it be created within finite, formalized system, Godel says it cannot.
>>17012450set theory algorithm
