𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

I’m surprised to hear GIMP crashed on you, I don’t think I’ve ever had it crash on me.

LinEUx

“In an April 2008 article in Vanity Fair magazine, the journalist David Rose published confidential documents, apparently originating from the US State Department, which would prove that the United States collaborated with the PNA and Israel to attempt the violent overthrow of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and that Hamas pre-empted the coup.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)#:~:text=In an April,empted the coup.

You have some reading to do.

There is no police for international matters.

There is, it’s called a UN Peacekeeping Force.

Hamas to power in 2007 and broke all past agreements with Israel and started to launch rockets into Israel. This lead to the blockade.

Hamas seized power after a civil war, brought on by an attempted coup by the PA backed by the US and Israel. This attempted coup led to the Hamas attacks on Israel. They did not randomly break all agreements and started shooting rockets.

Hamas was always deeply unhappy with the Israeli presence, but they hadn’t become really openly violent before that point.

If you started to fire your gun on my home at random hours I would have locked your door from the outside and set your home on fire with, or without, your family inside. This is common sense.

What the fuck is this insane statement. Call the police?

Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?

Did you completely fail to read the part “except where authorized”? That bit of legalese is a blanket “you can’t use this software in a way we don’t want to”.

You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. It does not allow you to download anything

Ah, you just have zero clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.

This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.

Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.

Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser. This snippet of legal terms didn’t really reinforce any of your points.

But it actually is helpful for mine. In legalese, downloading and storing a file actually falls under reproduction, as this essentially creates an unauthorized copy of the data if not expressly allowed. It’s legally separate from downloading, which is just the act of moving data from one computer to another. Downloading also kind of pedantically necessitates reproduction to the temporary memory of the computer (eg RAM), but this temporary reproduction is most cases allowed (except when it comes to copyrighted material from an illegal source, for example).

In legalese here, the “downloading” specifically refers to retrieving server data in an unauthorized manner (eg a bot farm downloading videos, or trying to watch a video that’s not supposed to be out yet). Storing this data to file falls under the legal definition of reproduction instead.

except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service

Can you read?

No, that’s “Download to file” or “Download and save”. Just because some people like to refer to downloading and saving as just “downloading”, doesn’t mean that that magically now means that. You out of all people, who likes to rail against people using wrong definitions, should realise this.

The CS definition has never directly implied that downloading must also store the received data.

For example your second source says “downloaded over the internet” and since YouTube doesn’t allow you to download videos, YT videos would be omitted from that definition.

Everything on the internet is “downloaded” to your device, otherwise you can’t view it. It just means receiving data from a remote server.

Yes, but at least there they still use “Earth time”, just slowed down. For the moon it gets a little bit more complicated I guess.

Time moves at a different speed due to the moon’s reduced gravity. It’s not just the length of a day.

What they didn’t prove, at least by my reading of this paper, is that achieving general intelligence itself is an NP-hard problem. It’s just that this particular method of inferential training, what they call “AI-by-Learning,” is an NP-hard computational problem.

This is exactly what they’ve proven. They found that if you can solve AI-by-Learning in polynomial time, you can also solve random-vs-chance (or whatever it was called) in a tractable time, which is a known NP-Hard problem. Ergo, the current learning techniques which are tractable will never result in AGI, and any technique that could must necessarily be considerably slower (otherwise you can use the exact same proof presented in the paper again).

They merely mentioned these methods to show that it doesn’t matter which method you pick. The explicit point is to show that it doesn’t matter if you use LLMs or RNNs or whatever; it will never be able to turn into a true AGI. It could be a good AI of course, but that G is pretty important here.

But it’s easy to just define general intelligence as something approximating what humans already do.

No, General Intelligence has a set definition that the paper’s authors stick with. It’s not as simple as “it’s a human-like intelligence” or something that merely approximates it.

Yes, hence we’re not “right around the corner”, it’s a figure of speech that uses spatial distance to metaphorically show we’re very far away from something.

Not just that, they’ve proven it’s not possible using any tractable algorithm. If it were you’d run into a contradiction. Their example uses basically any machine learning algorithm we know, but the proof generalizes.

Our squishy brains (or perhaps more accurately, our nervous systems contained within a biochemical organism influenced by a microbiome) arose out of evolutionary selection algorithms, so general intelligence is clearly possible.

That’s assuming that we are a general intelligence. I’m actually unsure if that’s even true.

That doesn’t mean they’ve proven there’s no pathway at all.

True, they’ve only calculated it’d take perhaps millions of years. Which might be accurate, I’m not sure to what kind of computer global evolution over trillions of organisms over millions of years adds up to. And yes, perhaps some breakthrough happens, but it’s still very unlikely and definitely not “right around the corner” as the AI-bros claim (and that near-future thing is what the paper set out to disprove).

Haha it’s good that you do though, because now there’s a helpful comment providing more context :)

I was more hinting at that through conventional computational means we’re just not getting there, and that some completely hypothetical breakthrough somewhere is required. QC is the best guess I have for where it might be but it’s still far-fetched.

But yes, you’re absolutely right that QC in general isn’t a magic bullet here.

The actual paper is an interesting read. They present an actual computational proof, stating that even if you have essentially infinite memory, a computer that’s a billion times faster than what we have now, perfect training data that you can sample without bias and you’re only aiming for an AGI that performs slightly better than chance, it’s still completely infeasible to do within the next few millenia. Ergo, it’s definitely not “right around the corner”. We’re lightyears off still.

They prove this by proving that if you could train an AI in a tractable amount of time, you would have proven P=NP. And thus, training an AI is NP-hard. Given the minimum data that needs to be learned to be better than chance, this results in a ridiculously long training time well beyond the realm of what’s even remotely feasible. And that’s provided you don’t even have to deal with all the constraints that exist in the real world.

We perhaps need some breakthrough in quantum computing in order to get closer. That is not to say that AI won’t improve or anything, it’ll get a bit better. But there is a computationally proven ceiling here, and breaking through that is exceptionally hard.

It also raises (imo) the question of whether or not we can truly consider humans to have general intelligence or not. Perhaps we’re not as smart as we think we are either.

If producing an AGI is intractable, why does the human meat-brain exist?

Ah, but here we have to get pedantic a little bit: producing an AGI through current known methods is intractable.

The human brain is extremely complex and we still don’t fully know how it works. We don’t know if the way we learn is really analogous to how these AIs learn. We don’t really know if the way we think is analogous to how computers “think”.

There’s also another argument to be made, that an AGI that matches the currently agreed upon definition is impossible. And I mean that in the broadest sense, e.g. humans don’t fit the definition either. If that’s true, then an AI could perhaps be trained in a tractable amount of time, but this would upend our understanding of human consciousness (perhaps justifyingly so). Maybe we’re overestimating how special we are.

And then there’s the argument that you already mentioned: it is intractable, but 60 million years, spread over trillions of creatures is long enough. That also suggests that AGI is really hard, and that creating one really isn’t “around the corner” as some enthusiasts claim. For any practical AGI we’d have to finish training in maybe a couple years, not millions of years.

And maybe we develop some quantum computing breakthrough that gets us where we need to be. Who knows?

This is a gross misrepresentation of the study.

That’s as shortsighted as the “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers” quote, or the worry that NYC would be buried under mountains of horse poop before cars were invented.

That’s not their argument. They’re saying that they can prove that machine learning cannot lead to AGI in the foreseeable future.

Maybe transformers aren’t the path to AGI, but there’s no reason to think we can’t achieve it in general unless you’re religious.

They’re not talking about achieving it in general, they only claim that no known techniques can bring it about in the near future, as the AI-hype people claim. Again, they prove this.

That’s a silly argument. It sets up a strawman and knocks it down. Just because you create a model and prove something in it, doesn’t mean it has any relationship to the real world.

That’s not what they did. They provided an extremely optimistic scenario in which someone creates an AGI through known methods (e.g. they have a computer with limitless memory, they have infinite and perfect training data, they can sample without any bias, current techniques can eventually create AGI, an AGI would only have to be slightly better than random chance but not perfect, etc…), and then present a computational proof that shows that this is in contradiction with other logical proofs.

Basically, if you can train an AGI through currently known methods, then you have an algorithm that can solve the Perfect-vs-Chance problem in polynomial time. There’s a technical explanation in the paper that I’m not going to try and rehash since it’s been too long since I worked on computational proofs, but it seems to check out. But this is a contradiction, as we have proof, hard mathematical proof, that such an algorithm cannot exist and must be non-polynomial or NP-Hard. Therefore, AI-learning for an AGI must also be NP-Hard. And because every known AI learning method is tractable, it cannor possibly lead to AGI. It’s not a strawman, it’s a hard proof of why it’s impossible, like proving that pi has infinite decimals or something.

Ergo, anyone who claims that AGI is around the corner either means “a good AI that can demonstrate some but not all human behaviour” or is bullshitting. We literally could burn up the entire planet for fuel to train an AI and we’d still not end up with an AGI. We need some other breakthrough, e.g. significant advancements in quantum computing perhaps, to even hope at beginning work on an AGI. And again, the authors don’t offer a thought experiment, they provide a computational proof for this.