Jump to content

Ghideon

Senior Members
  • Posts

    2568
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    21

Posts posted by Ghideon

  1. 2 hours ago, grayson said:

    When you say data preparation do you mean like natural language processing?

    No. Here are a few steps that may be associated with data preparation, none of these requires* NLP.

    (Locating Data: Identifying data sources.)
    (Collecting Data: Gathering or importing data.)
    (Data Ingestion: Obtaining and importing data for use or storage.)
    Data Cleaning: Correcting or removing inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
    Data Validation: Ensuring accuracy, consistency, and relevancy.
    Data Transformation: Converting data to a suitable format or structure.
    Data Integration: Combining data from various sources into a unified view.
    (Data Storage: Storing clean, ready data for future use.)

    Those within parentesis I consider of secondary importance to the software you describe and implemented by other tools. But I consider them important for the analysis I think you have in mind and may give a more complete view of steps involved.

     

    *) NLP could of course be incorporated; I do expect the current trend regarding AI (including NLP) and LLM's to affect vendors of analytics software and that is best discussed in a separate thread. 

     

  2. On 11/3/2023 at 9:07 PM, grayson said:

    Do you often work with analytics?

    Yes, on a daily basis.

    On 11/3/2023 at 9:07 PM, grayson said:

    And if so, how do you think any analytics software could improve.

    Some ideas: I find myself spending considerate amount of time on data preparation to ensure the data is accurate, consistent, and ready for analysis. This is an area that is complicated and I see room for improvement. Also, in relation to data governance, Data provenance (documentation of the origins, custody, and transformations that a dataset has undergone) is another area that may be improved. A naive & practical example; assume a manager makes a decision based on numbers and diagrams in a spread sheet. Performing reviews of the decision processes and validating the data used in the decision could benefit from better functionality in the software used in the analytics. 

    I am sure all the building blocks for the improvements already exists and that integrating them is a challenge. 

  3. Update: I wanted to share that I didn't (yet) get a chance to use the insights on the history of mathematics we discussed in this thread. An external AI expert covered the background and history of AI in their speech, so I shifted my focus to the current risks, opportunities, and guidelines related to Generative AI. I believe my presentation was well-received, as I've been asked to speak again. Hopefully I can include my view on the history of AI. A big thank you to everyone who contributed!

  4. On 10/12/2023 at 4:34 AM, kenjimckinstry said:

    The object around a larger one depends on the gravity waves of the larger object. Every celestial object has gravity waves. Looking at Einstein's theory you can see it is true. It looks like the earth is actually in a groove of a gravity wave around the sun. The grooves are caused by the gravity waves of the sun. They are ripples that look like circles around a celestial object. Please tell me what you think. 

     

    On 10/12/2023 at 5:54 PM, kenjimckinstry said:

    I see. It looks like the field actually has circular grooves. The satellite most likely sites in a groove that then revolves around our earth. 

    If there were "grooves" in the gravitational field as you propose, then the trajectory of a spacecraft traveling from Earth to the Moon (or any other celestial body in the solar system) would need to pass "through" or "over" these "grooves", right? The presence of these "grooves" would logically imply a variation in the gravitational field. This variation would, in turn, affect the spacecraft's trajectory, potentially causing deviations in speed and/or direction from the path predicted by established theories like Newton's law of universal gravitation or Einstein's theory of general relativity. However, no such deviations have been observed in any space mission to date, as far as I'm aware.

  5. 1 hour ago, Capiert said:

    tend
     to think,
     we do NOT need
     (kinetic_)Energy(_difference)’s
     (redundant) syntax.

    I tried using a language model; Input prompt: "Can you help me make sense of the following post I found on a science forum. I want you to reformat the text so I can analyse it" (followed by OP). An extract from my first attempt:

    Quote

    The member suggests discarding the energy concept altogether in favour of other physical quantities, like momentum, believing that energy complicates understanding rather than facilitating it. They propose modifying established laws of motion to circumvent issues they attribute to the energy concept.

    Maybe you should try one of these tools @Capiert to see of the output better communicates your ideas?

     

  6. 1 hour ago, daniel j lavender said:

    One can argue whoever utilized whatever language at whichever stage.  The point is it all coheres, it all culminates with this.

    I think you missed the point completely. Do you know what message and meaning that appear from your analysis of the painting if it is performed using Swedish?

  7. 7 hours ago, kenny1999 said:

    Apple's official site suggests their users maintain at least 1GB of free space for best performance.

    Where? Maybe this link to apple support: https://support.apple.com/en-us/102598, it explains the reason. (Highlighted below)

    Quote

    For best performance, try to maintain at least 1GB of free space. If your available storage is consistently less than 1GB, your device might slow down as iOS or iPadOS repeatedly makes room for more content.


     

  8. On 9/22/2023 at 12:44 PM, daniel j lavender said:

    The interesting thing, however, is the symbolism aligns with my initials, DJL (Daniel J. Lavender).  Dark (D) on the left, Jesus (J) in the center and Light (L) on the right.

    That is because you chose to use some random words from contemporary English.

    Interesting how these historic "symbols" that keeps occurring in various forms from various individuals only makes sense in the individuals' native language.

  9. On 9/16/2023 at 12:11 PM, AIkonoklazt said:
    1. Actually, scientific studies supports the presence of underdetermined factors themselves (the neuronal stimulation experiment on fly neuronal groups). The procession of science itself (this is a big one) demonstrates the underdetermination of scientific theories as a whole (the passage from SEP re: discovery of planets in our solar system). My argument is also evidential.
    2. The impossibility, as demonstrated, is multifaceted. A) The problem isn't a scientific problem but an engineering as well as an epistemic problem (i.e. no complete model) as previously mentioned. B) There's also the logical contradiction mentioned. The act of design itself creates the issue. A million years from now, things still have to be designed, and as soon as you design anything, volition is denied from it. (Of course you can gather up living animals and arrange them into a "computer," but any consciousness there wouldn't be artificial consciousness. Why not just cut out animal brains and make cyborgs? It's cheaper and simpler that way anyhow if people are so desperate for those kinds of things... I seriously hope not) C) The nature of computation forbids engagement with meaning, as demonstrated in the Symbol Manipulator thought experiment (which is derived from Searle's Chinese Room Argument- instead of refuting behaviorism/computationalism like the CRA did it now shows the divorce of machine activity from meaning) and the peudocode programming example

    Is the argument air-tight? I wouldn't know unless people show me otherwise. This is why I've posted the article. This is why I've been trying to set up debates with experts (One journalist agreed to help a while ago, haven't heard back since... Usually people are really busy; I make the time because this has become my personal mission especially since court cases are starting to crop up as I have expected- The UN agency UNESCO banned AI personhood in its AI ethics guidelines but who knows the extent the member countries would actually follow it)

    I thought I did think up a loophole myself a few months back, but after some discussion with a neuroscience research professor (he's a reviewer in an academic journal) I realized that the possible counterargument just collapses into yet another functionalist argument.

    Thanks, this is useful for further discussion, it rules out categories of counter arguments that one could think of. Do we agree on the following statement?
    "Under the assumption that we agree that Artificial Consciousness is a logical contradiction given the definitions in your article then any introduction of counter arguments from the natural sciences is pointless; such arguments do not apply."
     

  10. 2 hours ago, CharonY said:

    Well, yes and because the brain constantly changes, you need to know the history of the brain if you want to reconstruct what things mean from a snapshot.

    I agree. An one addition; I don't think the brain has a "pause button" or a "global clock" that allows for a well defined state even if history wasn't an issue. Here the computer analogy may work as an illustration?
    A single computer typically allows a snapshot to be persisted and the state can be recreated on a different machine.
    In a large network with many computers and many concurrent network connections it gets tricky. Assuming constant network traffic and concurrent changes to local computers it may not be simple to take a global snapshot that correctly represents the complete state including signals in transit between computers.

  11. 9 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

    Upon deeper examination, artificial consciousness is an oxymoronic concept.

    Thank you for the clarification. Based on our discussion and the article:

    1: Any counterargument rooted in empirical or natural science can be dismissed by referencing the foundational definitions and claims of the article.

    2: The article's definitions and interpretations coherently rule out the possibility of artificial consciousness. Thus, any philosophical or logical counterargument can be dismissed, provided the article's foundational premises are accepted as correct.
     

    (I trust this sheds light on the relevance of the analogies I introduced earlier.)

    Side note: I haven't formally studied philosophy and seldom post in this section of the forum, so I appreciate your patience if my argumentation seems methodical.

  12. 16 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

    Scientific basis? What about engineering basis?

    (okay. You're not going to look at the article, but can you look at the reference section of the article? There are science and computer science references in there)

    I have looked at the article and other sources and got curious about science behind why it artificial consciousness is impossible. Your answer

    On 9/14/2023 at 1:13 AM, AIkonoklazt said:

    That's The law of non-contradiction.

    I'm trying to understand if that is a matter of definitions and logic. And, if so is the case, ruling out that there is any physical law making artificial consciousness impossible. 

  13. 19 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

    You must have been kidding.

    No, I have a serious interest in the topic and the root cause in science that makes artificial consciousness impossible. I'm looking for further information about the science, the basic foundations.

    Your answer implies that "Artificial Consciousness" is a definitional contradiction and I tried an analogy to illustrate (lets drop the analogy if you find it  irrelevant). If possible I want to distinguish between philosophical interpretation and a direct scientific refutation of the possibility of artificial consciousness.

    Note that I am not arguing against or in favour of your claims, I am engaging in the discussion to get knowledge and insights.

  14. 13 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

    Explain how that's a valid analogy.

    p.s I'd implore people of this forum to not make fart jokes of this topic. "Artificial" contains implications such as it being an artifact, which in turn contains other implications connected to insertion of teleology.

    Please explain the connection between the analogy I used and fart jokes. 

  15. 21 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

    There is more than one, but I'll start with the simplest one first.

    You can't have programming without programming. A "machine that does things on its own and thinks on its own" is a contradiction in terms, and thus a "conscious machine" is a contradiction in term. What's an "instruction without an instruction"? There was an an entire section about it ("Volition Rooms — Machines can only appear to possess intrinsic impetus")

    That's The law of non-contradiction.

     

    Thanks for your reply. Trying to understand some more from the simple one above; is the following a correct way to express how Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible according to your arguments?

    "From the definitions of "Artificial" and "Consciousness" it follows that Artificial Consciousness is impossible".

    An analogy from mathematics would be:
    From the definitions of "Negative" and "Natural number" it follows that negative natural number is impossible.


     

  16. On 5/29/2022 at 2:01 AM, AIkonoklazt said:

    Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible

    Just curious, can you refer to a scientific law or theorem that makes artificial consciousness impossible? Examples, analogies to illustrate my question:

    1: Due to Turing's proof, it is an established fact in theoretical computer science that it's absolutely impossible to create a general algorithm that solves the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs.

    2: According to the laws of thermodynamics, it's impossible to cool a system to absolute zero or below.

    In your opinion, is there an equivalent statement regarding the impossibility of artificial consciousness? 

  17. 5 hours ago, Genady said:

    if x is a complex number, there are many solutions.

    You're right!

    (I intentionally avoided complex numbers. From another thread, I noticed that the OP might benefit from understanding the basics before diving into complex solutions.)

  18. On 8/27/2023 at 11:59 PM, grayson said:

    I am having a fight with chatgpt

    When referencing chatgpt (and similar tools) it is advisable to include version and/or edition to be used. The development is rather quick and there are different capabilities in various editions (free, paid, beta releases...). Open AI has (recently) added python capabilities to ChatGPT. This, in my opinion, allows for possibly better output from an LLM for the type of questions OP asked (given that a reasonable prompt is used as input) since the LLM output can be based on the output from the running python code.

    (I notice that OP has left this topic to pursue other interests, this response is more of a general observation)

  19. 12 hours ago, studiot said:

    Despite the title here is a contents list as to why it may be relevant.

    Thanks for the list and the book suggestion!

    11 hours ago, Prometheus said:

    cellular automata

    That is a good suggestion as well.  
    I'm also thinking of adding  "Optimization" (one example: gradient descent).

    Note: I've not added Turing machine to the list; I see Turing as more foundational to computing in general and not a top candidate in the context of LLMs. But I'm open for suggestions and opinions.  
     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.