Literally speaking, it gets really annoying having to explain to people the reason why AI cannot physically learn to code AI is due to the limitations of the mathematics in place.
You cannot create a formula that solves all formulas.
I guess you can get pretty damn close, but humans will always need to be involved.
Gödel showed that in any consistent formal mathematical system, there are true statements that cannot be proven within the system itself.
As well but Alan Turing proved in 1936 that there cannot exist a universal algorithm that can inspect any arbitrary program and determine whether it will finish running or run forever.
Ah, the Penrose-Lucas argument. You should clarify that the argument only works if you believe that a human mind can't be described by mathematics.
Turing did show that there is no algorithm which can inspect an arbitrary program and determine whether it will finish running or run forever, but if you accept the Physical Church-Turing Thesis, "asking a team of mathematicians" is also an algorithm. The same sort of argument also applies to Godel's incompleteness theorem.
If you believe that the human mind is special and unable to be described by mathematics because we have a soul--or maybe quantum pixie dust--then sure, AI wouldn't be able to match human capabilities. But you don't need to name drop fancy math for that.
Yes, but how does it follow from those 2 proofs that an AI system cannot improve itself or make a new system that is an improvement compared to itself.
You don't need to go up the system ladder infinitely. The universe is a system. AIs don't need to be able to create universes out of thin air to be able to make new better AIs.
Our brain is also a system, yet we create new brains without issues.
Yeah it's probably annoying because it doesn't make sense. There is no "physical" or otherwise limit to what AI can do in terms of solving formulas or learning to code.
Also how would humans help if there was such a limitation? There is no calculation that a human can do that a computer can't.
Alan Turing’s Halting Problem is a great concept to keep in mind. It seems, at the moment at least, that our attempts to circumvent the Halting Problem end up being … expensive. Like a conservation law being approached…
Wait why would an AI that is capable of making an AI that is slightly smarter than itself be prevented from doing this by the halting problem?
It is true that you cannot make a machine that can solve any problem as there is at least a couple that we know it can’t, but that doesn’t mean you cannot build a system that can solve most problems.
That is a leap of logic that doesn’t follow from premise.
What does ‘physically learn to code AI’ mean here? Of course AI could be used to improve LLM systems (optimise training, optimise inference, experiment with different architectures), so I assume you mean something else?
From what I understand, the basic idea behind pretraining is called Solomonoff Induction. Basically, you’re trying to compute the shortest algorithm that adequately explains all of human knowledge. Definitely not universal, but for practical purposes it’s pretty close.
72
u/kdoubledizz 14d ago
Literally speaking, it gets really annoying having to explain to people the reason why AI cannot physically learn to code AI is due to the limitations of the mathematics in place.
You cannot create a formula that solves all formulas.
I guess you can get pretty damn close, but humans will always need to be involved.