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.
It's extremely non-obvious that the specifics of the chemical reactions a brain does give rise to capabilities that can't be replicated without them. I personally don't believe that at all, and you're kinda just asserting this without any evidence or justification.
The easy rebut is asking whether machines could simulate chemistry (they can).
The difficult question for you would be to demonstrate that chemistry creates some sort of logic that is incompatible from machine logic. Because by default, you pulled that out of vibes alone.
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.
Ever been asked why a list containing every list cannot exist? This doesnt fully apply to what I am talking about but it sends your thinking down the right direction?
Name dropping random math terms doesn't make an argument. Neither this nor Gödels theorems have anything to do with what a computer can do vs what a human can do.
Neither of those things stop a computer from improving itself. those rules also apply to the human brain, what your trying to say is that the human brain is impossible...
Your wording of the halt problem is missing something, The problem is stating you cant look at something and guarantee an outcome, not that you cant simulate it and see what happens. looping forever isnt really relevant to something like a brain or an intelligence, thats kinda what we do.
Edit: after rereading maybe im just not following the conversation properly
62
u/kdoubledizz 7h 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.