OSDev.org

The Place to Start for Operating System Developers
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:42 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The approaches about natural language programming
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:42 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:36 pm
Posts: 88
Location: North Dakota, United States
DavidCooper wrote:
Okay; you've forced another reply.

Ethin wrote:
No, this was a classical evasion tactic. You completely avoided answering my question, responding with something entirely irrelevant to the question being asked. I'm not sure what universe you live in but here in the universe we call 'reality', this is called 'evading the question'. I certainly have "checked" and this is the result that I have generated -- I have no doubt that others will agree with me on this matter.

How did you check? Did you find infinite recursion and determine that neither statement can be true or false because they're actually vacuous, or did you magically find them to be true by taking that on trust from magical thinkers? I gave you the right answer to your question, but you'd rather lick the boots of people who've established an error as correct maths. How are you ever going to correct that if their authority trumps reason every time? Right is right; not might.

What kind of logic is this? Where did you ever come up with the conclusion that I am relying on "magical thinkers"? I checked by using simple logic, nothing more. I have not yet approached a profesional mathematician on this matter (though if you continue this nonsense I most likely will and would be even happier to submit this thread for mathematical analysis for accuracy verification).
Quote:
Quote:
Ah, and there's your problem. Your fatal flaw, you could say. In order for people to validate that your proof is indeed correct, they need to know how it works, and therefore your proof needs to indicate how you generated that proof and everything that you used, followed, etc., to come up with the end result.

You're mixing two different things together. I showed you how "this statement is true" is neither true nor false, but vacuous. The things I'm not showing you are quite different things (primarily relating to generative semantics).

Um... no. I'm not mixing anything up. I am clearly demonstrating that you are wrong. I indicated that your fatal flaw, according to me, was failing to provide evidence as to how your method is better than all other methods in existence; methods that have existed for over a thousand years.
Quote:
Quote:
A similar thing will happen with your AGI project.

As I said before, we need multiple independently-designed AGI systems to check each other for errors. The fewer we have, the less keen we should be to trust them. However, as soon as there is one that has learned everything and which can crunch all the numbers better than humans can, people will follow its advice as that will let them outcompete others who ignore its advice, so even if people try to keep it in a cage, it will take over everything through influence alone. That's why we need independent thinkers to create rival systems rather than have everyone plough the same furrow.

Do you have any evidence as to how this would happen? I would not trust someone who followed the advice of a machine and never consulted someone human for advice to see if the advice that that person gave was similar or identical first. Just bcause a machine is capable of crunching numbers and generating possibilities (and by extension advice) does in no way mean that advice is right, correct, or even safe.
Quote:
Quote:
There are two major issues though:
1) The world will never be 'safe'. This is a utopia and will never happen. Utopias are fallacies. They do not and will never exist. There will always be some cog in the machine that will ensure that a distopia exists.

Utopia is impossible, but that doesn't make it impossible to get as close to it as nature allows. To give up on that on the basis that perfection can't be achieved is a colossal error.

Do you know what humans have been trying to achieve for over fifteen million years? A utopia. Do you know what every civilization ever devised by mankind has been trying to achieve since its inception? A utopia. And yet.... every time that this has been attempted it has failed spectacularly, usually resulting in the complete annihilation of the civilization in question. What makes you think that your attempt will be any more successful than the thousands to millions of attempts that have been tried before you.
Quote:
Quote:
2) After you die, you immediately lose ownership of your assets. After all, your dead, so you can't make a claim to them. Anyone then can just find your work and publish it; whether you would or would not be fine with that is completely and utterly irrelevant because you are *dead*.

How is anyone just going to find it? It will remain in the hands of people who will keep it secure for as long as necessary. I've made sure of that.

Have you really? Can you guarantee with 100-percent accuracy that those individuals are perfect and invulnerable and will never lose track of your work? Can you guarantee that your work will never be leaked? Can you guarantee that your work, if encrypted, will never be broken/decrypted by force? I think that the answer to all of these questions is a resounding 'no'. If you thought yes to any of these questions then I will tell you right now: you are wrong. If you persist and insist that you are right and that nothing will ever make your information available until *you* deem it time, then you are senile and need to get your head checked. How exactly can you guarantee anything after your dead? This is not the universe of Harry Potter. The fedelius charm does not exist here. After your dead, the gloves come off and nothing -- absolutely nothing -- can be guaranteed.
Quote:
Quote:
Last but not least, you are significantly worrying me when your going on and on about this. I and others have provided various reasons as to why what you are doing is wrong, and yet you refuse to even consider, for a single second, that we might be right, caught up in the illusions that you have that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Why would this worry you when you don't believe I've got anything of value? And how is what I'm doing wrong? There are governments and terrorist groups out there who are seeking to develop biased AGI if they can, and then they'll use it to favour their elites and to exploit/kill everyone else. There are also large companies which mean well but which say they'll share AGI with each other as soon as they have it, ensuring that it will rapidly find its way into the hands of dictatorships. Those are the people who should keep you awake at night.

Your both right and wrong.
First: your right because those do keep me awake sometimes at night.
Second: your wrong because you are someone who clearly has pseudomathematical ideas that could be far more dangerous than anything a company develops. You do not need ten trillion dollars to make a bomb that is capable of destroying an entire block of houses. Similarly, you do not need ten million dollars to develop a computer system capable of taking down half the internet or causing even worse damage than that.
Quote:
Quote:
This is dangerous because those who do not listen to others usually end up producing things that ultimately lead to the destruction of civilizations, companies, etc. History has aptly demonstrated that this happens. I highly discourage you from continuing on your present course and to *actually* use logical reasoning and listen to what we are telling you.

I'm not going to let mistakes in maths sabotage my project by accepting naive, incorrect analysis by people who don't apply fundamental rules rigorously. When they take "this statement is true" as true, they are breaking the rules, and that could lead to the machine making bad judgements, potentially with lethal consequences. There's a very dangerous reverse-Dunning-Kruger effect which leads qualified experts to overestimate their competence. There is no substitute for pushing all the labels aside and testing ideas directly without letting any other factors like status influence and mislead you. All today's experts are just apes with heads full of neural nets that produce errors. They are not gods. To get closer to being right, you have to be able to recognise and override their mistakes and keep testing your own beliefs to destruction so that you don't fall into the same trap.

I am not even going to attempt to argue with the nonsense contained in this part of your reply. I'm not even going to argue about how this part of your reply reeks of so much arrogance its not even remotely funny. You believe, above all else, that you are superior to mathematicians around the globe, calling them "people who don't apply fundamental rules rigorously." You further then add insult to injury by calling the practices and methodologies that said people employ "naive, incorrect analysis." If you cannot see the extreme delusions of grandeur that you hold, then I feel really, really sorry for you. No, DavidCooper, it is you who is the person who does not apply fundamental rules rigorously. You are the one who makes naive, incorrect analysis. It is you who is letting factors like status influence mislead you. You say that these mathematicians are not gods; I agree. But you are not a god either, yet you are literally implying that you are one. It is you who is failing to recognise your own mistakes.
Yes, I believe that all mathematicians make mistakes. But, unlike you, I don't try and single-handedly attempt to create solutions for those mistakes, especially when I do not understand the area I would like to create a solution well enough to even begin creating a solution.
Please, stop with the god complex and get back to reality. I am really getting sick of it and I have no doubt everyone else is too.
Edit: this post may have pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable on this forum. If so, I do apologize.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The approaches about natural language programming
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:10 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:53 pm
Posts: 1067
Location: Scotland
Ethin wrote:
What kind of logic is this? Where did you ever come up with the conclusion that I am relying on "magical thinkers"? I checked by using simple logic, nothing more.

So why did you get the wrong answer like them? The check to see if the statement is true never terminates. Only a magical jump in reasoning can turn something so vacuous into something meaningful enough to be true or false, and that's where the rules are broken.

Quote:
Um... no. I'm not mixing anything up. I am clearly demonstrating that you are wrong. I indicated that your fatal flaw, according to me, was failing to provide evidence as to how your method is better than all other methods in existence; methods that have existed for over a thousand years.

That's mixing two things. Not showing you a whole lot of other stuff has no connection to the issue of "this statement is true" not being true. I showed you why it isn't true (or false), and apparently you think you proved me wrong on the basis that I won't show you unrelated industrial secrets.

Quote:
Do you have any evidence as to how this would happen? I would not trust someone who followed the advice of a machine and never consulted someone human for advice to see if the advice that that person gave was similar or identical first. Just bcause a machine is capable of crunching numbers and generating possibilities (and by extension advice) does in no way mean that advice is right, correct, or even safe.

Do you think people will ask for the advice of economists, politicians or bookies to check the advice of AGI systems which are providing inordinately better advice? No: those who follow the advice of AGI will make a lot of money while those who reject that advice will lose a lot of money, and that's what will drive people to act on AGI's advice before such systems have been fully checked for safety. Some of its advice needs to be acted on in a hurry too because we've got a world in a mess that needs urgent solutions to avert the catastrophic consequences of NGS running things up to now. Even dangerous AGI is probably safer than NGS. (N=natural; S=stupidity.)

Quote:
Do you know what humans have been trying to achieve for over fifteen million years? A utopia. Do you know what every civilization ever devised by mankind has been trying to achieve since its inception? A utopia. And yet.... every time that this has been attempted it has failed spectacularly, usually resulting in the complete annihilation of the civilization in question. What makes you think that your attempt will be any more successful than the thousands to millions of attempts that have been tried before you.

All those attempts were run by NGS. Some of them haven't done so badly (such as Scandinavia where communism has been done better than in countries that are officially communist). In all cases though, errors are made that would not be made by AGI. Human politicians are like programmers, most of them writing code with terrible bugs in it, only politicians are worse because no matter how much their programs crash, they claim they're working fine and blame other things for their failings.

Quote:
Have you really? Can you guarantee with 100-percent accuracy that those individuals are perfect and invulnerable and will never lose track of your work? Can you guarantee that your work will never be leaked? Can you guarantee that your work, if encrypted, will never be broken/decrypted by force?

The aim isn't to keep it secret for ever. I want it all revealed as soon as possible because it's interesting to see how it all works, but it has to be kept private for sufficient time to get to a point where the people who would seek to misuse it can be controlled. There are no ideal options, but at some point you have to trust someone because the alternative is more dangerous.

Quote:
You believe, above all else, that you are superior to mathematicians around the globe, calling them "people who don't apply fundamental rules rigorously."

If people break the rules, they are not doing their job as well as it should be done. If I spot one error in a million things where the rest are right, that's not evidence of superiority. All I did was point out an error in mathematics as a way of making the point that I'm capable of doing the kind of work that I do. The many other things I've found are in an area where very few people have done any work, and the ones who have have struggled because they came into it from the wrong place, all trained in applying the wrong kind of mathematics.

Quote:
You further then add insult to injury by calling the practices and methodologies that said people employ "naive, incorrect analysis."

It is naive to take "this statement is true" as being true. Naive is a technical term in that context: not an insult.

Quote:
If you cannot see the extreme delusions of grandeur that you hold, then I feel really, really sorry for you.

I know what work I've done and what I've achieved, so I simply go by that and tell it how it is. If you want to mistake that for delusions of grandeur, that's just a display of miscalculation on your part.

Quote:
No, DavidCooper, it is you who is the person who does not apply fundamental rules rigorously. You are the one who makes naive, incorrect analysis.

So you're still going with the magic thinking that makes the vacuous true. Well, there's no law against being wrong.

Quote:
But you are not a god either, yet you are literally implying that you are one. It is you who is failing to recognise your own mistakes.

No, you're just reading that into a place where it doesn't belong. Things that are either right are wrong are either right or wrong. Getting the description right doesn't make anyone a god. What I showed you is that there's an error in a piece of accepted mathematics. If you want to decide that anyone who claims to find such an error must be boasting about being a god, then you're helping to prevent mathematics from self-correcting.

I was deeply damaged in childhood and spent two years on the edge of suicide. That turned me into an outsider and made me stay away from all establishments. I developed a phobia about being noticed and still find it hard even to answer a telephone. I felt like a piece of rubbish that had been thrown out, and it's difficult to get back from there. You haven't the first idea about who I am. I use a picture of me on all social media taken when I was five because that's the last time I was happy. Pieces of rubbish don't have delusions of grandeur and don't mistake themselves for gods. However, they can apply rules with precision and get things right, and then they can say so too. If other people then want to piss on them for having the temerity to do that, then that's just how the world is. And it's like that because of NGS. There is no one more driven than I am to put that right.

Quote:
Please, stop with the god complex and get back to reality. I am really getting sick of it and I have no doubt everyone else is too.

I have no time for gods. I only have time for rules applied systematically and without error. A machine programmed to work that way is what the world needs to fix the god-awful mess that people have made. What you're sick of is your own projection onto me of ideas generated in your own mind. Stop generating those ideas and your problem will go away.

_________________
Help the people of Laos by liking - https://www.facebook.com/TheSBInitiative/?ref=py_c

MSB-OS: http://www.magicschoolbook.com/computing/os-project - direct machine code programming


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The approaches about natural language programming
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:01 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 1:27 pm
Posts: 624
Quote:
What I showed you is that there's an error in a piece of accepted mathematics. If you want to decide that anyone who claims to find such an error must be boasting about being a god, then you're helping to prevent mathematics from self-correcting.

You stated that you didn't even properly read/know the proofs that you claim to be correcting. Sorry, but that's just bullshit.

There are machine-verified proofs of Gödel's theorem. Rejecting it means either demonstrating an inconsistency in ZFC or rejecting one of the axioms or deduction rules of natural deduction or a similar logic. The mumbling that you produced in this thread is not an inconsistency in the axiom system.

_________________
managarm: Microkernel-based OS that is capable of running a Wayland desktop
My OS-dev projects: [mlibc: Portable C library for managarm, qword, Linux, Sigma, ...] [LAI: AML interpreter] [xbstrap: Build system for OS distributions]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The approaches about natural language programming
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:14 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:07 am
Posts: 3567
Location: Chichester, UK
I'm afraid that this subthread is akin to trying to discuss Finnegan's Wake with someone who hasn't learnt to read. I don't know where to start on the lack of understanding demonstrated by David.

It is a waste of everyone's time.

(Disclaimer - I have a first-class BA in mathematics, so clearly my views can't be trusted.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The approaches about natural language programming
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:11 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:36 pm
Posts: 88
Location: North Dakota, United States
I give up. I am tired of debating with someone who refuses to consider anything I'm raising and continues to reroute the topic to something that I thought we had finished a page or so back. Yes, David, I don't know **** about you. But I can infer things about you based on what you post on here, and right now, I see you as both an extremely helpful person when it comes to OS Development but someone who clearly needs to be examined by psychologists in everything else. I'm not even going to attempt to counter anything you've stated in your most recent post because I know that in the end all it would do is end up taking us in endless circles, with you not proving anything but the fact that you've got a superiority complex the size of China. I'm done, I have better things to do than argue with someone who refuses to listen to anything but their own mind.
@iansjack, if your views can't be trusted and you've got a first-class BA in mathematics, mine then are just the views expressed by... I don't even know. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The approaches about natural language programming
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:45 pm 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:53 pm
Posts: 1067
Location: Scotland
If you program a machine to accept "this statement is true" without recognising that it isn't valid, whatever it then does will be based on that error, so its verification is grounded in error. Put right that machine and it will no longer verify the theorem.

_________________
Help the people of Laos by liking - https://www.facebook.com/TheSBInitiative/?ref=py_c

MSB-OS: http://www.magicschoolbook.com/computing/os-project - direct machine code programming


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The approaches about natural language programming
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 3:43 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:36 pm
Posts: 88
Location: North Dakota, United States
DavidCooper wrote:
If you program a machine to accept "this statement is true" without recognising that it isn't valid, whatever it then does will be based on that error, so its verification is grounded in error. Put right that machine and it will no longer verify the theorem.

And again you keep circling back to this statement, over and over and over again. We make no headway at all. Hence, I'm tired of arguing with you on this matter. Once you've actually understood what I and others have posted in this thread we'll talk. (Also, if a human actually works on something as much as you claim you have, without external input and only an echo chamber to guide them, they'll eventually start to believe it and develop a mindset that they're right and everyone else must be wrong, just as you have. They'll be completely immovable, they're thought stream immutable. No one will be able to change them once they've crossed that invisible line between "I believe that I am right" and "I am most definitely right." This is aptly demonstrated in all sorts of things including religion.) Good day to you!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group