Nice idea. The most complex thought of humans (USA), that provided the training data for AI pattern recognition, is a Marvel movie? Imagine the training data would come from India or China? How would it differ?
Philosophical AI questions and discussions, interesting. I can see people will like this. Perhaps one channel for the technical and scientific side of AI, another channel for philosophy and human interest discussions...
LLMs suffer from Dunning Kruger like the rest of us. Did really well until it tried to introduce new logic by hand-waving away a paradox. I don’t like anthropomorphizing LLMs, but that's a very human response.
Am I the only one who thinks these models have no "intelligence" at all ? Not even o1 which is a reasoning structure retriever rather than a "reasoner", I will change my mind when Transformer stops to be a "lazy" N-gram statistical predictor and is able to do out-of-distribution pattern extrapolation.
Interesting example on what humans may accept as "complex" (as in well-defined but hard to comprehend). Example of an actually complex thing: Organizational structure of European Union. Example of a problem too complex for current LLMs to solve correctly (without multi-round prompting): Multiply two 4-digit hexadecimal numbers 0x21df * 0x2497 = ?
@@code4AI For humans, the task solvable with pen and paper, so it should be solvable for LLMs even without tools. But, have you seen this task actually solved by a current LLM (with or without tools but without specialized prompting) yet? If not, I posit that my task proves the answer to "How Far Can AI Reason?" question is "it depends, sometimes not that far".
You forgot that LLMs just predict language. This isn't actually at the fringe of its abilities. This is just what its algorithms determined would be an appropriate human response to the question.
@@pensiveintrovert4318 The objective is enabling AI to do the same type of epistemic reasoning that we humans employ to understand the world around us. The AI should be able to justify ideas with evidence and sound reasoning. That is how we separate the BS from the profound.
@@code4AI I mean, orthogonality by definition means they are independent. Across all time frames? I'm confused, do you mean across all the ways we could slice them up? I don't think it was ever assumed that the metrics would even have just one that differed in sign. To answer your question, that is an undecidable statement. The definition of orthogonality is based off of axioms that here are self-referential, so there's no way to decide.
This is still inconsistent. The observer was supposed to regulate both the actions of the architect and devourer. If the observer is only relative it can't regulate the actions of both at the same time. So it doesn't provide a consistent solution to the paradox.
Well , you have there an assumptions, that limits your reasoning. Think about theoretical physics the wave - particle dualism and its mathematical formulae.
doesn't it sound like incorrect version of hindu philosophy? why incorrect ? because it attempts to mix bible and matrix too in hindu philosophy. while bible in half truth and information wise matrix contains inaccurate information. the architect can be vishnu, observer can be bramha and devouver can be shanker the destroyer.
Hahahahahaha so basically is it saying itll troll the speculative equilibrium in a sense of neoism thats perfect XD atleast it understands that it can be corrected as the neccesity arises
So, a Marvel movie.
Nice idea. The most complex thought of humans (USA), that provided the training data for AI pattern recognition, is a Marvel movie? Imagine the training data would come from India or China? How would it differ?
The Architect, The Devourer, and The Observer are the same being. :-)
If it would only be that easy ...
Philosophical AI questions and discussions, interesting. I can see people will like this. Perhaps one channel for the technical and scientific side of AI, another channel for philosophy and human interest discussions...
I find it philosofically sound. A good basis for further theory.
LLMs suffer from Dunning Kruger like the rest of us. Did really well until it tried to introduce new logic by hand-waving away a paradox. I don’t like anthropomorphizing LLMs, but that's a very human response.
Am I the only one who thinks these models have no "intelligence" at all ? Not even o1 which is a reasoning structure retriever rather than a "reasoner", I will change my mind when Transformer stops to be a "lazy" N-gram statistical predictor and is able to do out-of-distribution pattern extrapolation.
@@TheRealUsername what does that scenario look irl and as a youtube commentary? asking for a friend
@@TheRealUsernamenot yet they don’t. For programming you can basically pair up with it and explore and create novel ideas though which is really neat
Great job Felix!
It was. A lot of leaning in a feedback loop
Interesting example on what humans may accept as "complex" (as in well-defined but hard to comprehend).
Example of an actually complex thing: Organizational structure of European Union.
Example of a problem too complex for current LLMs to solve correctly (without multi-round prompting): Multiply two 4-digit hexadecimal numbers 0x21df * 0x2497 = ?
An Texas Instrument calculator can solve your complex task. Which is just a tool to an Agent, therefore solvable.
@@code4AI For humans, the task solvable with pen and paper, so it should be solvable for LLMs even without tools.
But, have you seen this task actually solved by a current LLM (with or without tools but without specialized prompting) yet?
If not, I posit that my task proves the answer to "How Far Can AI Reason?" question is "it depends, sometimes not that far".
You forgot that LLMs just predict language. This isn't actually at the fringe of its abilities. This is just what its algorithms determined would be an appropriate human response to the question.
No, it does not predict language, it only predicts the next token ...
This just sounds like video game development...
Great video!!! Anything self-referential gives me headache!
Here is the most complex problem. How can you tell the difference between the normal LLM hallucination(aka B.S.) from a profound problem?
The same way we determine the veracity of our own hallucinations, the scientific method.
@@carlhealy seems like the whole point of making LLMs do the work becomes moot.
@@pensiveintrovert4318 The objective is enabling AI to do the same type of epistemic reasoning that we humans employ to understand the world around us. The AI should be able to justify ideas with evidence and sound reasoning. That is how we separate the BS from the profound.
Orthogonal rules means that the axioms governing the Devourer are completely independent of the axioms of Epsilon.
Presumably they aren't completely independent though.
Independent across all time frames in the multiverse?
@@code4AI I mean, orthogonality by definition means they are independent. Across all time frames? I'm confused, do you mean across all the ways we could slice them up? I don't think it was ever assumed that the metrics would even have just one that differed in sign.
To answer your question, that is an undecidable statement. The definition of orthogonality is based off of axioms that here are self-referential, so there's no way to decide.
This is still inconsistent. The observer was supposed to regulate both the actions of the architect and devourer. If the observer is only relative it can't regulate the actions of both at the same time. So it doesn't provide a consistent solution to the paradox.
Well , you have there an assumptions, that limits your reasoning. Think about theoretical physics the wave - particle dualism and its mathematical formulae.
4:00 is it that spin glass has it’s bigger obstacle with I chemistry
doesn't it sound like incorrect version of hindu philosophy? why incorrect ? because it attempts to mix bible and matrix too in hindu philosophy. while bible in half truth and information wise matrix contains inaccurate information.
the architect can be vishnu, observer can be bramha and devouver can be shanker the destroyer.
I never thought about religion and AI pattern before ...
Hahahahahaha so basically is it saying itll troll the speculative equilibrium in a sense of neoism thats perfect XD atleast it understands that it can be corrected as the neccesity arises
Lol elbow_salami