Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 262,011 of 262,912    |
|    dart200 to polcott    |
|    Re: on what are you even crying about ri    |
|    18 Dec 25 16:54:34    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math       From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid              On 12/18/25 4:45 PM, polcott wrote:       > On 12/18/2025 6:39 PM, dart200 wrote:       >> On 12/18/25 4:35 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:       >>> On 12/17/2025 11:13 PM, dart200 wrote:       >>>> On 12/17/25 10:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:       >>>>> On 12/17/2025 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:       >>>>>> On 12/17/25 10:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:       >>>>>>> On 12/17/2025 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:       >>>>>>> [...]       >>>>>>>> While no halt deciders exist, the "inteface that they define" does.       >>>>>>>       >>>>>>> For a given program, the creator can create a halting decider for       >>>>>>> its logic. Does this path halt or not, well, we know, we made the       >>>>>>> damn thing. But, there is no one universal decider...       >>>>>>>       >>>>>>> [...]       >>>>>>       >>>>>> how do we know that if there is no algo to compute that???       >>>>>>       >>>>>       >>>>> If you create a program you know what paths its going down. If you       >>>>> call into other programs, well, shit happens. But your own logic,       >>>>> you know what you are doing when you made the program.       >>>>       >>>> w/e, i think "your own logic" is following an algo we just haven't       >>>> written down because "muh undecidability"       >>>>       >>>       >>> There can be a specialized halting decider for a program, but not one       >>> decider for any program.       >>       >> thank you for repeating the consensus that has been repeated at me       >> 100s of times now       >>       >       > It is best to think of most of them as not very smart bots.       > On the other hand Claude AI is so fabulous at semantic       > entailment from a correct basis that I got it to override       > its own bias and admit its own mistake this way. It was       > actually capable of introspection.              bro convincing an AI to say what u want is kinda trivial, other people       are not, and i've learned a lot more in responding to real people vs AI              and i don't feel like having that debate, so we can just agree to       disagree on that point              >       >> also there are semantic paradoxes that no program could decide upon       >>       >              --       hi, i'm nick! let's end war 🙃              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca