bwoj · HackerTrans

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

Untrue. Unsold inventory must be represented on the balance sheet as an asset. Marking down the value of 1000’s of cybertrucks will drop the book value of the company. It will impact various financial ratios that are used to estimate value. Worse yet, a public admission that they can’t sell these things can undermine the confidence which is the only thing propping up the stock’s value right now.

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

Sure, but why would they? They’re profiting too.

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

WTF does yassified CPG even mean?

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

You’re probably wasting time commenting here instead of having your AI do it.

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

That’s such outdated thinking. I’m using AI to build AI into my workflows.

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

That sounds like an admission that it’s a bad thing and not an argument about why Musk’s department should be allowed to do more of the same with even less oversight.

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

My credit report is just names and dollar amounts too. I don’t want the whole world having access to it.

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

To be fair, I muddled concepts of formal/informal systems versus completeness and consistency. I think if you start from an assumption that ANN is a formal system(not a given), you must conclude that they are necessarily inconsistent. The AI we have now hallucinates way too much to conclude any truth derived from its “reasoning.”

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

On one level, yes you’re right. Computing weights and propagating values through an ANN is well defined and very algorithmic.

On the level where the learning is done and knowledge is represented in these networks there is no evidence anyone really understands how it works.

I suspect maybe at that level you can think of it as an algorithm with unreliable outputs. I don’t know what that idea gains over thinking it’s not algorithmic and just a heuristic approximation.

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

It does apply to AI in terms of the computers we compute neural networks on may be equivalent to Turning machines but the ANN networks are not. If you did reduce the ANN down to a formal system, you will likely find that in terms of Godels theorem that it would be sufficiently powerful to prove a falsehood. Thus not meeting the consistency property we would like in a system used to prove things.

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

I suspect that if formal systems were unequivocally “better” than formal systems our brains would be formal systems.

The desirable property of formal systems is that the results they produce are proven in a way that can be independently verified. Many informal systems can produce correct results to problems without a known, efficient algorithmic solution. Lots of scheduling and packing problems are NP-complete but that doesn’t stop us from delivering heuristic based solutions that work good enough.

Edit: I should probably add that I’m pretty rusty on this. Godels theorem tells ua that if a formal system is consistent, it will be incomplete. That is, there will be true statements that cannot be proven in the system. If the system is complete, that is, all true/false statements can be proven, then the system will be incomplete. That is you can prove contradictory things in the system.

AI we have now isn’t really either of these. It’s not working to derive truth and falsehood from axioms and a rule system. It’s just approximating the most likely answers that match its training data.

All of this has almost no relation to the questions we’re interested in like how intelligent can AI be or can it attain consciousness. I don’t even know that we have definitions for these concepts suitable for beginning a scientific inquiry.

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

It is a big mistake to think that most computability theory applies to AI, including Gödel’s Theorem. People start off wrong by talking about AI “algorithms.” The term applies more correctly to concepts like gradient descent. But the inferences of the resulting neural nets is not an algorithm. It is not a defined sequence of operations that produces a defined result. It is better described as a heuristic, a procedure that approximates a correct result but provides no mathematical guarantees.

Other aspects of ANN that show that Gödel doesn’t apply is that they are not formal systems. Formal system is a collection of defined operations. The building blocks of ANN could perhaps be built into a formal system. Petri nets have been demonstrated to be computationally equivalent to Turing machines. But this is really an indictment on the implementation. It’s the same as using your PC, implementing a formal system like its instruction set to run a heuristic computation. Formal system can implement informal systems.

I don’t think you have to look at humans very hard to see that humans don’t implement any kind of formal system and are not equivalent to Turing machines.

bwoj

w zeszłym rokudiscuss

I guess DOGE will set its sights on NHTSA next.

comments