Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46300245

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46272755

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

What if over the next few decades, science is creatively destroyed; no more science remains that isn't in some way produced using AI. I'm quite critical in using these tools but I'm not a Luddite.

1) There could be something novel about this, even if it's just the way it all hangs together.

2) If not, then it could be mundane but consistent output which is encouraging, with respect to previous interactions.

3) It could be wrong but then it is quite convincingly so, I have not yet checked the details.

Do you agree? Tell me what you think?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46256964

Points: 1

# Comments: 7

In times past, the only people on earth who had their standard of living raised to a level that allowed them to cast there gaze upon the stars were the Kings and there courts, vassals, and noblemen. As time passed we have learned to make technologies that provide enough energy slaves to the common man that everyone lives a life that a king would have envied in times past.

So the question arises as to whether AI or the pursuit of AGI provides more or less energy slaves to the common man?

Despite all that, one can adopt the view that an LLM is a form of silicon based life akin to a virus and we are its environmental hosts exerting selective pressure and supplying much needed energy. Whether that life is intelligent or not is another issue which is probably related to whether an LLM can tell that a cat cannot be, at the same time and in the same respect, not a cat. The paths through the meaning manifold contructed by an LLM are not geodesic, they are not reversible, while in human reason the correct path is lossless. An LLM literally "thinks", up is a little bit down, and vice versa, by design.

Unfortunately, its corpus is bound to contain noise/nonsense that follows no formal reasoning system but contributes to the ill advised idea that an AI should sound like a human to be considered intelligent. Therefore it is not a bag of words but a bag of probabilities perhaps. This is important because the fundamental problem is that an LLM is not able, by design, to correctly model the most fundamental precept of human reason, namely the law of non-contradiction. An LLM must, I repeat must assign nonvanishing probability to both sides of a contradiction, and what's worse is the winning side loses, since long chains of reason are modelled with probability the longer the chain, the less likely an LLM is to follow it. Moreover, whenever there is actual debate on an issue such that the corpus is ambiguous the LLM becomes chaotic, necessarily, on that issue.

I literally just had an AI prove the forgoing with some rigor, and in the very next prompt, I asked it to check my logical reasoning for consistency and it claimed it was able to do so (->|<-).

The article doesn't propose anything especially different from Lamport clocks. What this article suggests is a way to deal with non-idempotent message handlers.