Activity Feed
Hi Mike, welcome to Veritula. I’m Dennis, the founder.
Take a look at the discussions for any topics that might interest you.
You can also participate in bounties.
What brings you to V?
#4809·Dirk Meulenbelt revised 1 day agoA random number generator does not have universal creativity, because it is not a universal explainer: it can only generate explanations by accident. Universal explainers seek good explanations through conjecture and criticism.
Universal explainers seek good explanations…
You sounded persuaded by https://blog.dennishackethal.com/posts/hard-to-vary-or-hardly-usable. As in, you agreed that people don’t seek good/hard-to-vary explanations.
So why still speak of good explanations?
#4776·Tyler MillsOP, 5 days agoThis wrongly implies speed is a property of programs, but it's a property of hardware.
Speed is a property of programs, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
#4764·Dennis Hackethal, 7 days agoIn everyday English, we say ‘probably’ to leave room for error and communicate some uncertainty. That’s fine because everyone knows we’re not assigning actual probabilities in the sense of the probability calculus.
In math, we use the probability calculus to describe the frequency of outcomes for underlying processes that look random. Like a coin toss. That’s also fine because we know all possible outcomes and we have a measure for each.
Things go wrong when people use probability even though they don’t know the outcomes (because of the growth of knowledge, say, as you write in #4762) or they have no measure for them or the underlying phenomena don’t behave randomly (again because of the growth of knowledge). Like Elon Musk tweeting we’re 90% likely to see AGI in 2026. (Not a literal quote but he says stuff like that sometimes.)
Some people try to steal the prestige of math and hide their ignorance by using the probability calculus illegitimately.
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfzSE4Hoxbc. It’s been years since I watched it but it’s bound to have related ideas.
I think this clarifies it, thanks. Used in common speech to express uncertainty and leave room for error, valid mathematically only when all outcomes are known and have a measure.
#4760·Tyler MillsOP, 9 days agoIn summer in the desert, will it "probably" be sunny in the afternoon?
No, it will or it won't, but "probably" expresses one's awareness of a lack of battletested explanations, or of their own uncertainty or lack of confidence in the prediction, etc. (cf. #4764).
#4812·Tyler MillsOP, 1 day agoWe could say a person is a program that can synthesize any possible explanation in finite time, excluding memory limitations. But this would again grant personhood to RNGs. For that matter, a counting program could just enumerate all possible binary strings up to its memory limit, in finite time...
Creativity isn't defined by its outputs but by its process. RNGs do not recognise or criticise ideas.
#4807·Tyler MillsOP, 1 day agoDoesn't it? All explanatory knowledge is in the set of all possible programs, and a random program (or number) generator can generate any of those, given infinite time.
We could say a person is a program that can synthesize any possible explanation in finite time, excluding memory limitations. But this would again grant personhood to RNGs. For that matter, a counting program could just enumerate all possible binary strings up to its memory limit, in finite time...
#4807·Tyler MillsOP, 1 day agoDoesn't it? All explanatory knowledge is in the set of all possible programs, and a random program (or number) generator can generate any of those, given infinite time.
You're right and I revised my criticism.
A random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.
A random number generator does not have universal creativity, because it is not a universal explainer: it can only generate explanations by accident. Universal explainers seek good explanations through conjecture and criticism.
#4783·Knut Sondre Sæbø revised 4 days agoUnderstanding explanatory knowledge seems like a better criterion
Maybe... but "understanding" is too vague, I think. Doesn't understanding mean: can explain? But then this is just "can create any explanation" again. I think the core question is why a random program generator isn't a person, coming from Deutsch's definition of a person as a program that has explanatory universality -- can create any explanation (my thought here is that this definition isn't good enough on its own, given the random generator point).
#4781·Dirk Meulenbelt, 4 days agoA random number generator does not create explanatory knowledge.
Doesn't it? All explanatory knowledge is in the set of all possible programs, and a random program (or number) generator can generate any of those, given infinite time.
#4805·Tyler MillsOP, 4 days agoBut an AI programmed to make random variations to its conjectures (English or otherwise) can only do so by choosing from an existing set of variations. Again, that knowledge is pre-existing. True evolution must involve variations to the substrate on which the knowledge is based; variations must be agnostic to the semantics of whatever they are acting upon, else they are already implicit from it, in which case their application does not constitute a truly novel conjecture (in the sense defining creativity).
Even if variations are agnostic to any meaning or context of the knowledge, why are they still not implicit? Anything is implicit from anything else, if implicit just means: follows from when a given change is applied... The whole question is where the change is coming from... (?)
#4803·Tyler MillsOP revised 4 days agoIf only some of the criteria are stored, and the rest are random, is it still evolution? Is evolution only happening if there is random variation? But we could program an LLM to do that as well...
But an AI programmed to make random variations to its conjectures (English or otherwise) can only do so by choosing from an existing set of variations. Again, that knowledge is pre-existing. True evolution must involve variations to the substrate on which the knowledge is based; variations must be agnostic to the semantics of whatever they are acting upon, else they are already implicit from it, in which case their application does not constitute a truly novel conjecture (in the sense defining creativity).
If only some of the criteria are stored, is it still evolution? Then evolution is only the random part of the variation?
If only some of the criteria are stored, and the rest are random, is it still evolution? Is evolution only happening if there is random variation? But we could program an LLM to do that as well...
If only some of the criteria are stored, is it still evolution? Then evolution is only the random part of the variation?
If only some of the criteria are stored, is it still evolution? Then evolution is only the random part of the variation?
#4799·Tyler MillsOP, 4 days agoWhatever new "explanations" it creates are derivable from (and by?) the knowledge in the training data. It isn't evolution if all of the variations and selection criteria are stored ahead of time. That's just a search process, as in the case of Move 37 per AlphaGo.
If only some of the criteria are stored, is it still evolution? Then evolution is only the random part of the variation?
#4797·Tyler MillsOP, 4 days agoonly people can create explanatory knowledge
How is an LLM not creating new explanatory knowledge (even if worse than the existing, by any measure), by varying some existing written explanation? It could even vary and select by some criterion of its "choice", thus realizing Popperian epistemology.
Whatever new "explanations" it creates are derivable from (and by?) the knowledge in the training data. It isn't evolution if all of the variations and selection criteria are stored ahead of time. That's just a search process, as in the case of Move 37 per AlphaGo.
#4722·Tyler MillsOP, 12 days agoThe definition of fitness that rendered Move 37 the best choice originated outside the system.
The definition of fitness for DNA also originated outside it, so this doesn't in itself suggest the system isn't actually creating new knowledge.
#4796·Tyler MillsOP, 4 days agoA person could create the same knowledge that biological evolution does, if only by simulating it. But it could still be true that only people can create explanatory knowledge. (That they can create all possible explanatory knowledge is Deutsch's criterion for personhood.)
only people can create explanatory knowledge
How is an LLM not creating new explanatory knowledge (even if worse than the existing, by any measure), by varying some existing written explanation? It could even vary and select by some criterion of its "choice", thus realizing Popperian epistemology.
#4795·Tyler MillsOP, 4 days ago"No unconscious creativity" seems the simpler option. But here we arrive again at biological evolution, which is unconscious, yet is creating knowledge. Does this serve as a distinction between explanatory knowledge and non? Explanatory knowledge can only be created by a conscious process?
A person could create the same knowledge that biological evolution does, if only by simulating it. But it could still be true that only people can create explanatory knowledge. (That they can create all possible explanatory knowledge is Deutsch's criterion for personhood.)
#4794·Tyler MillsOP, 4 days agoEither there is no unconscious creativity, or only evolutionary/creative epochs with certain properties are conscious. The most obvious candidate for the property is complexity (in the sense of sophistication): only programs (existing knowledge) of a certain sophistication, once subjected to the evolutionary process, necessitates consciousness. Complex problem solving seems to require consciousness. Meanwhile, we do not seem to be conscious of "simpler" creative tasks, like... Like what? What is a "simple" creative task? What is an example of a creative task we perform unconsciously? How could we determine it was an act of creation (new knowledge), and not an act of deductive inference of the kind characterizing AI?
"No unconscious creativity" seems the simpler option. But here we arrive again at biological evolution, which is unconscious, yet is creating knowledge. Does this serve as a distinction between explanatory knowledge and non? Explanatory knowledge can only be created by a conscious process?
#4793·Tyler MillsOP, 4 days agoThis suggests that all experience is determined by what programs are being subjected to evolution at any given time, the niches that are being adapted to. But why is not all creativity in the mind conscious? (All consciousness might necessarily be creativity).
Either there is no unconscious creativity, or only evolutionary/creative epochs with certain properties are conscious. The most obvious candidate for the property is complexity (in the sense of sophistication): only programs (existing knowledge) of a certain sophistication, once subjected to the evolutionary process, necessitates consciousness. Complex problem solving seems to require consciousness. Meanwhile, we do not seem to be conscious of "simpler" creative tasks, like... Like what? What is a "simple" creative task? What is an example of a creative task we perform unconsciously? How could we determine it was an act of creation (new knowledge), and not an act of deductive inference of the kind characterizing AI?
#4751·Tyler MillsOP, 9 days agoSOLUTION: The apple programs are not the same programs one execution to the next. They are being re-evolved every time they are run. This evolution is what the person is doing, and so must be what gives rise to the experience consisting of the apple rendering.
This suggests that all experience is determined by what programs are being subjected to evolution at any given time, the niches that are being adapted to. But why is not all creativity in the mind conscious? (All consciousness might necessarily be creativity).
#4791·Tyler MillsOP, 4 days agoIt could be simulated, but maybe it's very hard/intractable to do so. Maybe personhood harnesses physics to do the evolving, like a windmill harnesses the wind. Programs implemented such that the laws of physics cause them to evolve (unboundedly)?
But if the evolution is the defining feature of personhood, and the evolution is non-computational, then the personhood is non-computational. And consciousness would then not be a software property.
#4790·Tyler MillsOP, 4 days agoPrograms could be evolved non-computationally. But that process could itself still be simulated, per the Church-Turing-Deutsch Thesis.
It could be simulated, but maybe it's very hard/intractable to do so. Maybe personhood harnesses physics to do the evolving, like a windmill harnesses the wind. Programs implemented such that the laws of physics cause them to evolve (unboundedly)?