AIkonoklazt

I'm not aware of any.

What has gotten into you? I said "I don't think that's the way to increase quantum computing performance" and not "I don't think it's possible to increase quantum computing performance"

It's really unbelievable that Hinton, despite demonstrations to the contrary, still believes that brains work via backprop... It's as if he found this hammer, and suddenly everything looks like a nail. If the matter comes down to any formalism, it wouldn't matter whether something is digital or analog. It's always going to be the fundamental question of "okay, so things are getting moved around in a system... Exactly where is the referent in all that?" I believe the AI field should really stop it with their "reverse-engineering the non-engineered" paradigm. I think it's nonsense. It's fine to take inspiration, but to think things could ever go further than that is just flat out mistaken.

Wouldn't have to do that if you just do it as a percentage at tax time, it's "litter tax" Think you asking this sorta stuff is missing the forest for the trees

99% of their wealth for the fine They can afford it

None of them are scientific claims

My argumentation relied on generalized formalism involving abstracted movement of any kind of load. Those relying on electrical and optical signals would involve movement of electrons and pulses of light (and in quantum computers, movement of qubits via transfer of quantum states). The defining distinction of truly referential systems would then be one of non-algorithmic behavior. The first Bishop paper I cited in this thread refers to Goedelian arguments in this regard, which are basically refutations of computationalism: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474/full

I don't think those are scientific claims.

...I don't think that's the way to increase quantum computing performance, since if that were the case it would already been done.

$1,000,000 a pop for those special snowflakes.

The short of it is that quantum computing solves time complexity (as contrasted to computability, except this one very specific impractical case that was found) which means problems that were previously impossible for ordinary computers only because it would take too long for them to solve would now be able to be solved within a practical time frame. Quantum operations enable what's effectively a massive increase in parallelism, giving huge speedups when they could be made to solve those problems. The answer would be "perhaps certain varieties of them, but it won't just wipe out RSA in one fell swoop." Also, there's a big catch. You'd need a "sufficiently powerful" quantum computer to do it, and it's not going to be easy to build one. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/05/30/65724/how-a-quantum-computer-could-break-2048-bit-rsa-encryption-in-8-hours/

Of course you can, unless you try to mix those two separate and mutually exclusive spheres.

Most of this stuff is cultural. When I was in Kyoto I thought holy cow, those were some of the cleanest backstreets I've seen in my entire life- I could almost eat off the ground!... Almost. ..and then there was Nice (pronounced "neese",) with its dog poop sidewalks. Nice. Since changing culture is not extremely practical, I'd say there's nothing like some negative financial incentive. Start handing out hundred-dollar tickets left and right and see what happens.

Don't have to prove anything; Just look at what the term refers to. Dictionary definitions basically say that atoms are inanimate. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inanimate

@TheVat Yes, I think you're referring the The Robot Reply to the CRA https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/#RoboRepl This approach is basically an attempt at grounding via embodiment. I would say that it is a perfectly good way to improve performative intelligence. There is a really big array of embodiment-related ML projects out there. However, machine embodiment would still inevitably involve encoding. The activity of encoding breaks the grounding and creates a semantic barrier: World --> Machine Interface --> Mechanistic Encoding --> Algorithmic Processing When encoding happens, we're stuck with payload-sequence manipulation. Actually, payload-sequence manipulation is already part of the encoding, and vice versa. Various ML systems would have to be implanted with varieties of GOFAI to rein them in, ridding them of any out-of-control behavior. I think some research project are already doing those things, sort of? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03975-7 Any consciousness arising out of those systems are not artificial, because I'd consider them cases of manipulation of natural consciousness. To use a crude example, I can make a machine out of conscious dogs and arranging them into live pulleys and gears (poor doggies...) but that machine isn't exactly artificially conscious. What's more, I think a lot of these systems may eventually end up being conscious in an epiphenomenal fashion. That's just really Twilight-Zone-esq if you think about it........ Imagine being trapped in something you have zero control of, and what you experience isn't even necessarily in sync with what's happening (yikes)... It's going to be a bit of an ethical red flag, IMO.

Okay, +1 to iNow, he's being fair now. I like fair. I think more explanation may be in order on how's and why's of a formalism. First, we ask ourselves, what is a machine, and why is it any different than something that's not one? A machine is a designed object that has things that move things around. We have to design behaviors into this object, so that it does what we want it to do. What is this "things that move things around"? It doesn't matter. The bottom line is we must have to specify something about "things that move things around," the way to do this is generally an instruction. An instruction to things that move things around is an algorithm. What I have done, is abstract things so far up that algorithms themselves is a form. It doesn't matter how we implement "things that move things around" (formalism). Algorithms in general is now a form. Anything that is made, has to do this general thing. The technology doesn't matter. In my article, I gave the example how even catapults follow this. Architecture doesn't matter; You can use gears, you can use water pipes, basically "anything that move things around." As you can see, this is the furthest one can get from "rigidity." This has to do with the principles of computation itself. My argument is via principles- It is mostly an a priori argument that's independent of time and place. A trillion years from now, if you have something that moves things around, you're going to have something that move things around....... I hope this provides a reasonable (re)starting point. I'm not going to get into reasons that reverse engineering doesn't makes sense yet (well, they're in the article, but as far as re-explaining everything is concerned I should just keep it short for now.) p.s. Organisms are not designed, and therefore not subject to algorithms. See scientific finding referred to in my article regarding behavior of neural groups in a fly

By default there's no judgement. When there's no proof there's still no judgement either way. You forget that when "X explains Y's white spots" it's not a scientific explanation, so whatever judgement you're forming is still outside of any scientific acceptance. Science and faith occupy two utterly distinct spheres, they should have zero to do with each other.

Yes agreed, I mentioned "design decisions" in the paragraph prior to the quoted one.

Oh forgot the actual topic... Of course "GOP" can win the Presidential election. Look at the polls, it's a coin flip. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

No. Let's get the meaning of the term straight, here. Guided evolution means something external to the evolving thing is making design decisions (e.g. iterative changes to car design, and thus the design of automobiles would be said to be "evolving" according to design decisions), otherwise the term "guided evolution" becomes completely meaningless, since just the simple term "evolution" would do. The second issue is that organisms shaping their environment has to do with guided evolution of the environment, and not those organisms. Let's not confuse what the term "guided evolution" refers to. Do you see the correspondence between the bolded parts of the previous statements? You're mixing everything together. Wait a second. That logic doesn't make sense. X could not be proved one way or the other, therefore X should be accepted ????????????????????? I thought the logical response would be: X could not be proved one way or the other, therefore judgement regarding X should be withheld ??????

I have this impression that "GOP" is really "Trump Party" and thus "GOP voters" are "TP voters." "Non-Trump GOP" would be "independent" or "unaffiliated" since the GOP is basically no more. The "issue(s) that GOP voters care most about" would be "is Trump gonna own the libs," If they say they care about other stuff, uh well maybe, but that's not really what they care most about... It doesn't actually matter what Trump does or doesn't do or will do or won't, and it doesn't actually matter what Biden does or doesn't or will or won't, either. Trump will own the libs as the next "boss," from jail cell or not. I wonder if they'd let him out of jail for meetings, or would foreign dignitaries have to have meetings with him behind bars?

Mostly I dislike it when people pretend that they know even a shred of what they're talking about when they absolutely don't, starting with the word "formalism." Particularly those who entertain the idea that a particular formalism change just because the implementation of that formalism changes. Again, perfectly demonstrating utter ignorance on the matter. Oh, and not to mention constantly jabbing and venturing into metadebate.

iNow is sticking to his role for this particular thread to a T.

Way to go with generalization. Professors of Emeritus are already retired educators, they're in it for the knowledge sharing. Boy, just how desperate are you at grasping every last little straw? Congrats on being able to use a search. Now either look at something with more than just one sense defined, or try not cutting off what you don't want to acknowledge from screencaps. Here. I'll throw you a bone. Try sticking the term "logical" or "mathematical" in front of the word "formalism." https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2017.0872

The second sentence of the reply shows you've no idea what I'm talking about with regard to formalism.