Search Ideas
2416 ideas match your query.:
Okay, it looks like, counter-argumenting isn't enough to make a more interesting model by eliminating contradictions, let's try to find a common ground constructively, and use them as a fruitful source of improvement possibilities, I hope you do not perceive my, a bit informal way of express counter-arguments, personally, but as a valuable opportunity to test and improve worldview, as so do I, or just because of curiosity, anyway there's no reason to protect any fragile theory, except for a practice and for a cognitive workout purpose. So, back to the point: how your worldview model deals with Kuhn's stance of epistemic's non-monotonic nature? Do you have some formal semantic/logic in mind? Intuitionistic/nonmonotonic/relevance/modal, in particular epistemic/doxastic/temporal logics? There's pretty interesting matching and reachability logics: http://www.matching-logic.org . The https://cis.temple.edu/~pwang/NARS-Intro.html model looks promising. But there's a lot of opportunities to improve/overcome computation complexity issues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_explosion), and probably re-imagining, what computers are -- could be the key (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer). I agree with the take that only proofs counts which possible to run on the computer. But at the end, any computer or any person -- are just phenomenons at reality, not available for the direct observation and verification, so, after all, at the end -- it's all just vibes around the silent essence.
The certainty that one able to know something in advance.
The root of all kind of discriminations and profanity, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
Agree, you right, accepting the mistake.
Would you like to tell more what you found important from the Popper's work?
Is prejudgment and conformism any good?
I’m not advocating conformism.
What you describe sounds more like Kuhn’s stance, not Popper’s.
Even if that were true, that doesn’t mean we need to endure unhappiness or stasis until then.
“truenesslessnessless”, “beingnesslessnessless”, “thisnesslessnesslesssness”
What? You’re rambling.
Not better, nor worse, then anyone's else.
This stance is known as relativism. It’s bad. Popper, Deutsch, and several others philosophers have already refuted it. You’re advocating an outdated idea.
There’s an objective way to form a rational preference for one idea over another. Veritula explains that in the idea you criticize.
What's bad in being irrational?
Irrationality leads to stasis, unhappiness, and ultimately death.
Getting Bryan Caplan to write a blurb for Aaron’s book was the worst thing Aaron could have done to promote its values. Caplan is a clown who believes in freedom for children except when it comes to math, which he thinks children need to be forced to learn because it’s important. Real poison. See #1051.
What's awesome about LLM is how easy it became to do an interdisciplinary meta-analysis.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347205807031
What is awesome about LLM is how it it became easy to do an interdisciplinary meta-analysis.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347205807031
What is awesome about LLM is how it it became to do an interdisciplinary meta-analysis.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347205807031
Most ridiculous are takes about so-called Turing test, which, AFAIK, originally was just a bad misogynic joke. Some kind of evolutionary psychology experiments, which people already have set up to study limits of different animals cognitive abilities and abilities to make judgements (e.g. role-playing, like: what ones know about other know about them, and vice versa), or a development of infant children's abilities to interpret concepts like geometry of space, cause and consequence -- would be way better criteria for the AGI system metrics evaluation.
Since the carrier language is the fundament, I'm stuck significantly in attempts to elaborate this topic deeper. https://x.com/VictorTaelin did a huge progress in this direction, I believe, but I know no details. Disappointingly few people working on this around the world (though, it could change quickly with modern trends). The next small step -- not only representation of knowledge and reasoning about it, but compression and knowledge synthesis (which LLM in it's way doing not so bad, but not so consistently and effective), thru AIXI. Then -- epistemic framework, like NARS, to learn from real-world empiric experience. And only then -- complex game theory/goal setting/economics/interaction with, and interpretation of other's behavior. And only after that -- there's make sense to discuss consciousness, as an introspection of other's observation/interpretation/modeling.
The Beginning of Infinity
Heard about it, have not read though. I do not expect AGI from LLM. But it's an awesome tool that helps speed-up learning, research and prototyping. And also all this hype accelerate some money to this topic, which is good. Indeed, if natural intelligence possible, why artificial -- can not? According to the roadmap, I more trust in good old-fashioned symbolic AGI and formal methods. NARS + AIXI + elegant dependent modal or substructural (maybe homotopic) typed programming language with strong meta-theoretic properties, as a carrier of observations, knowledge and judgments + a bit of game theory and evolutionary psychology = this is the way, I believe.
And maybe some tricky computational non-von Neumann architecture to have a nice computational complexity for that (not sure about that, but plausible it make sense to utilize some sort of analogous computations in addition to digital ones).
The Beginning of Infinity
Heard about it, have not read though. I do not expect AGI from LLM. But it's an awesome tool that helps speed-up learning, research and prototyping. And also all this hype accelerate some money to this topic, which is good. Indeed, if natural intelligence possible, why artificial -- can not? According to the roadmap, I more trust in good old-fashioned symbolic AGI and formal methods. NARS + AIXI + elegant dependent modal or substructural (maybe homotopic) typed language with strong meta-theoretic properties + a bit of game theory and evolutionary psychology = this is the way, I believe.
And maybe some tricky computational non-von Neumann architecture to have a nice computational complexity for that (not sure about that, but plausible it make sense to utilize some sort of analogous computations in addition to digital ones).
The Beginning of Infinity
Heard about it, have not read though. I do not expect AGI from LLM. But it's an awesome tool that helps speed-up learning, research and prototyping. And also all this hype accelerate some money to this topic, which is good. Indeed, if natural intelligence possible, why artificial -- can not? According to the roadmap, I more trust in good old-fashioned symbolic AGI and formal methods. NURPL + AIXI + elegant dependent modal or substructural (maybe homotopic) typed language with strong meta-theoretic properties + a bit of game theory and evolutionary psychology = this is the way, I believe.
And maybe some tricky computational non-von Neumann architecture to have a nice computational complexity for that (not sure about that, but plausible it make sense to utilize some sort of analogous computations in addition to digital ones).
And with LLM came to our live -- the path from the vision to [AGI] -- become notable closer…
Have you read any David Deutsch, or listened to any interviews of him? The Beginning of Infinity is very good. You might enjoy chapter 7, where he explains why chatbots don’t bring us closer to AGI.
This article of his is also good.
Let me know what you think of his stance.