• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    102 years ago

    An exact 1:1 realtime copy of itself emulated within a simulated universe.

    Pretty much everything else mentioned in this thread falls into the “never say never” category.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          02 years ago

          If you actually read the article, it doesn’t say anything about being able to solve the halting problem. It used the undecidability of the halting problem to prove equivalence of another class of problems to the halting problem.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            Which is why I said it was still a “never say never” and not an already solved problem.

            The halting problem is impossible for Turing machines, but if hypercomputation ends up possible, it isn’t impossible.

            For example, an oracle machine as proposed by Turing, or a ‘real’ computer using actual real values.

            The latter in particular may even end up a thing in the not too distant future assuming neural networks continue to move into photonics in such a way that networks run while internals are never directly measured. In that case the issue would be verifying the result - the very topic of the paper in question.

            Effectively, while it is proven that we can never be able to directly measure a solution to the halting problem, I wouldn’t take a bet that within my lifetime we won’t have ended up being able to indirectly measure a solution to the problem and directly validate the result.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42 years ago

      I don’t know, there are a couple pretty good ones here by chatgpt:

      Of course! Here are some classic dad jokes for you:

      1. Why don’t skeletons fight each other? They don’t have the guts.
      1. Did you hear about the cheese factory that exploded? There was nothing left but de-brie.
      2. I used to play piano by ear, but now I use my hands.
      3. What do you call a fish with no eyes? Fsh.
      4. Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
      5. What’s brown and sticky? A stick.
      6. How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together.
      7. I’m reading a book on anti-gravity. It’s impossible to put down.
      8. Parallel lines have so much in common. It’s a shame they’ll never meet.
      9. Did you hear about the mathematician who’s afraid of negative numbers? He’ll stop at nothing to avoid them.
  • booty [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    42 years ago

    Art. At least, until we get AI which is actually capable of thought, which I personally don’t think is going to happen. Art of any kind is completely inaccessible to the sorts of “AI” being put forward now. Art is fundamentally about conveying a meaning beneath the surface. All art, visual or verbal or otherwise, shares this trait. AI has no feelings, no meaning to share. All it does is meaninglessly mimic the form of art made by others.

    • Spzi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      Is there a turing test for art, and what’s the detection quota?

      I think any clear definition will either positively identify lots of AI works as art (along collections of random junk), or deny the qualifier to lots of supposed artworks from human artists.

      Coming from theater, I agree it is about “conveying a meaning beneath the surface”. Having studied computer science, I note that is very much not in a strict sense, but very vague. It seems to be a feature, not a bug, that everyone in the audience can see something different.

      I think you can pretty much present random nonsense, and someone will still find it brilliant and inspiring, and a lot more people will tell you what patterns they saw, and of what it reminded them. The meaning is created in the minds of the observers, even if the creator explicitly did not put another, or any, meaning into the “art”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      this is an interesting one cause it feels like a mobile philosophical goalpost, what would classify as ‘feeling enough’ for gyou?

      Definitively the AI is able to understand the meaning behind a prompt and expand on it, before I’ve asked it for a picture of a cartoon cat and instinctivly it put a ruler beside it to show it was only a couple cm across

      It certainly is a very efficient form of this compared to what were used to, cutting about as many corners as you can - but then again it still produces the output, and what other goalposts can we reliably argue for?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      An artist and an AI, when given the same prompt, will produce similar outputs. However, an artist replicates it in strokes, while AI replicates it in pixels. AI can create art, because art is in the eye of the observer, but its different than a human creating art.

      • booty [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        An artist and an AI, when given the same prompt, will produce similar outputs.

        yeah thats what art is about, you got it

  • Riskable
    link
    fedilink
    English
    152 years ago

    Since AI is trained by us, using the fruit of human labor as input, it’ll have to be something we can’t train it to do.

    Something biological or instinctual… Like being in close proximity to an AI will never result in synchronized menstruation since an AI can’t and won’t ever menstruate.

    So… That 👍

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    312 years ago

    Fundamentally, anything humans can do can be done by physical systems of some kind, (because humans are already such a system), so given enough time I’d bet that it would be eventually possible to make a machine do literally anything that can be done by a human. There might be some things that nobody ever does get an AI to replicate even if technically possible though, just because of not having a motivation to

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    52 years ago

    Cracking my knuckles nervously before I’m about to give a presentation in front of the whole class.