Indeed. But their is something surprising here, however. people like chomsky would present examples like this for decades as untracktable by any algorithm, and as a proof that language is a uniquely human thing. they went as far as to claim that humans have a special language organ, somewhere in their brain perhaps. turns out, a formula exists, it is just very very large.
> chomsky would present examples like this for decades as untracktable by any algorithm, and as a proof that language is a uniquely human thing
Generatove AI has all but solved the Frame Problem.
Those expressions where intractable bc of the impossibility to represent in logic all the background knowledge that is required to understand the context.
It turns out, it is possible to represent all that knowledge in compressed form, with statistical summarisation applied to humongous amounts of data and processing power, unimaginable back then; this puts the knowledge in reach of the algorithm processing the sentence, which is thus capable of understanding the context.
Which should be expected, because since human brain is finite, it follows that it's either possible to do it, or the brain is some magic piece of divine substrate to which laws of physics do not apply.
The problem turned out to be that some people got so fixated on formal logic they apparently couldn't spot that their own mind does not do any kind of symbolic reasoning unless forced to by lots of training and willpower.
That’s not what it means at all. You threw a monkey in your own wrench.
The brain has infinite potentials, however only finite resolves. So you can only play a finite number of moves in a game of infinite infinities.
Individual minds have varying mental technology, our mental technologies change and adapt to challenges (not always in real time.) thus these infinite configurations create new potentials that previously didn’t exist in the realm of potential without some serious mental vectoring.
Get it? You were just so sure of yourself you canceled your own infinite potentials!
Remember, it’s only finite after it happens. Until then it’s potential.
No, it doesn't. The brain has a finite number of possible states to be in. It's an absurdly large amount of states, but it is finite. And, out of those absurd but finite number of possible states, only a tiny fraction correspond to possible states potentially reachable by a functioning brain. The rest of them are noise.
You are wrong! Confidently wrong at that. Distribution of potential, not number of available states. Brain capacity and capability is scalar and can retune itself at the most fundamental levels.
As far as we know, universe is discrete at the very bottom, continuity is illusory, so that's still finite.
Not to mention, it's highly unlikely anything at that low a level matters to the functioning of a brain - at a functional level, physical states have to be quantized hard to ensure reliability and resistance against environmental noise.
Potential is resolving into state in the moment of now!
Be grateful, not scornful that it all collapses into state (don’t we all like consistency?), that is not however what it “is”. It “is” potential continuously resolving. The masterwork that is the mind is a hyoerdimensional and extradimentional supercomputer (that gets us by yet goes mostly squandered). Our minds and peripherals can manipulate, break down, and remake existential reality in the likeness of our own images. You seem to complain your own image is soiled by your other inputs or predispositions.
Sure, it’s a lot of work yet that’s what this whole universe thing runs on. Potential. State is what it collapses into in the moment of “now”.
And you’re right, continuity is an illusion. Oops.
I never bought into Searle's argument with the Chinese room.
The rules for translation are themselves the result of intelligence; when the thought experiment is made real (I've seen an example on TV once), these rules are written down by humans, using human intelligence.
A machine which itself generates these rules from observation has at least the intelligence* that humans applied specifically in the creation of documents expressing the same rules.
That a human can mechanically follow those same rules without understanding them, says as much and as little as the fact that the DNA sequences within the neurones in our brains are not themselves directly conscious of higher level concepts such as "why is it so hard to type 'why' rather than 'wju' today?" despite being the foundation of the intelligence process of natural selection and evolution.
* well, the capability — I'm open to the argument that AI are thick due to the need for so many more examples than humans need, and are simply making up for it by being very very fast and squeezing the equivalent of several million years of experiences for a human into a month of wall-clock time.
Minds shuffle information. Including about themselves.
Paper with information being shuffled by rules exhibiting intelligence and awareness of “self” is just ridiculously inefficient. Not inherently less capable.
I don’t think I understand this entirely. The point of the thought experiment is to assume the possibility of the room and consider the consequences. How it might be achievable in practice doesn’t alter this
The room is possible because there's someone inside with a big list of rules of what Chinese characters to reply with. This represents the huge amount of data processing and statistical power. When the thought expt was created, you could argue that the room was impossible, so the experiment was meaningless. But that's no longer the case.
I'm not sure I'm following you. My comment re Chinese room was that parent said the data processing we now have was unimaginable back in the day. In fact, it was imaginable - the Chinese room imagined it.
Israel is a known industrial espionage threat to the us, how'd you think they got nuclear weapons? some analysts say they're the largest threat after china. Not to mention theyre currently using ai in targeting systems while under investigation for war crimes.
I rather assumed they were able to re-invent them from scratch by the work of their own scientists. I mean, the US did it before the invention of the transistor and what I've heard about the USSR project is their espionage only helped them know the critical mass without needing so many test runs, so it doesn't seem like it would be implausible that Israel could do it themselves about 20 years later.
Whether it is plausible or not is unrelated to what happened.
In 1965 NUMEC owner, Zalman Shapiro - in coordination with israeli intelligence, diverted 100 kg of 95% enriched uranium from the facility and shipped it to Israel. Enriching the material to weapons grade is the technically difficult part - which I would think israel would certainly not have the budget for given the size of its economy.
> which I would think israel would certainly not have the budget for given the size of its economy.
Hmm.
I'll buy that. I've seen a lot of wildly different cost estimates for separation work units, so I can only guess how much it might have cost at the time.
As someone who is in the verge of being killed with no side in this entire reality it's cool that in addition to trade and economics we now get compute as a geopolitical indicator maybe it can really all be automated
I hope someone with a better understanding of the details can jump in, but they are both Tier 2 (not Tier 3) restricted, so maybe there are some available loopholes or Presidential override authority or something. Also I believe they can still access uncapped compute if they go via data centers built in the US.
Just came to the same conclusion with my professor father in law. If AI can actually do a good job at writing some assignment then people shouldn't be bothering with that thing. If it can't it will not matter that it was written by AI it will just be bad.
Also our universities are failing us if the only thing we get at the end is a boolean piece of paper (or even one represented by a floating point number).
This is like servers at McDonald's complaining that the customers are cheating with trash cans because they aren't eating the meals they buy, just throwing them in the trash. Why would they do that?!?!? Because someone told them they need to go to McDonald's "for the experience"?
do you know what happens if military does not have a system to find and target specific people in a building? they just might need to bring down the whole building. everyone in it might die but at least your conscience is clean.
Even the wording of this question conflates a soldier killing a soldier during a conflict (which is objectively not murder) with the wanton execution of civilians with no regard to collateral or preventable damage, which is a war crime. And completely ignores the existence of a middle ground where a high-value military target is killed, preventative measures are taken to limit civilian casualties, and some civilians are killed despite those measures. That is not good but it's also not murder, and not a war crime.
I would love to have an honest, thoughtful discussion about how a war can be prosecuted between two powers with minimal civilian harm, but it's not possible when people aren't even honest about what constitutes murder and what doesn't.
Calling it "collateral damage" or "manslaughtering civilians" or whatever won't change my argument in the slightest. This isn't a language barrier. Actually, it sounds like the opposite: you're restricting the discussion to people who share your mindset.
Some people feel even stronger than I do and would prefer to avoid being involved in killing even an enemy combatant.
I'm not restricting anything but it's a different discussion entirely.
Discussing 1-how to limit civilian casualties during an otherwise legitimate conflict between two nations is one thing, 2-whether those civilian casualties constitute murder (and 3-by whom) is something else. But through pretty much all of human history, nearly all people have recognized a difference between killing during a war, including innocent civilian deaths, and intentional murder. If you want to discuss #1 you had probably agree on #2 first, don't you think?
I agree it's an interesting discussion, but I really didn't get any of that from the comment you originally replied to. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) My point was that the word "murder" there is largely irrelevant, the issue is killing in general. For me, there's no definition or level of efficiency that will make me comfortable being able to directly connect my hard work and someone else's death. And trying to frame harm caused by another as blood on my hands due to my refusal to help is ridiculous.
Given that some people do not see a soldier killing another solider vs a serial killer killing a random person as different, I think it is relevant. The technical distinction as far as I can tell is homicide (killing in any sense) vs murder (unlawful killing, e.g. not what soldiers typically do). How can one have a discussion about the ethics if those are not different? To flip it around, how could we have a discussion about the ethics of software and human life, if one of us believed that a serial killer killing people was an ok thing to do? e.g. everything would be ok, so there's no discussion? Conversely if all forms of combat killing are not ok, then there's no discussion to be had.
I suspect the idea that “people aren't even honest about what constitutes murder and what doesn't” creates a high barrier to the discussion you’d like to have.
From your post, I think you’re starting from the pov that governments have the right to decide what is murder vs an acceptable killing. Some of the people I’ve met who are most interested in these ideas are staunch pacifists with a strong religious motivation (e.g. Quaker or Methodist) and reject the idea that governments can declare any killing to be acceptable. I don’t believe they’re dishonest, for all that it’s a very different starting point.
Society, not governments, has more-or-less agreed for at least a few thousand years that there is a difference between these two acts. You're free to feel differently but as another commenter pointed out, there's not much of a discussion to be had on the ethics of killing in war if you think any two instances of one human killing another human are identical from a moral or ethical standpoint. Throughout all of human history, most people has believed there is a difference.
Attacking computer security is the only example I can think of for conflict without hurting civilians. Any armed conflict is going to cause additional civilian deaths.
Anybody that has lots of videos from you could train a deep fake realistic model and create a fake video depicting you committing a major crime. Sadly blackmail is the easier part.
The US could just drop nukes on any country they have a trade dispute with. They don't, because that is insane and disproportionate and they have the capability to do better than that.
What Israel did here is something you would expect from a terrorist organization.
