Irreducibility may be a thing, e.g. turbulence. For example, we can easily make an ML model that recognizes an image or speech and we can explain every little detail about how it works, but we can't explain the high level emergent dynamics of this model and thus can't really explain how it works. I believe we'll build a real AI soon, it'll exceed all expectations, and we still be puzzled by the complexity of it's turbulent emergent dynamics. In other words, if we could ask an oracle how cognition works, he would write a bunch of diff equations followed by a million volumes of hard math theorems and the complexity will be so irreducible that by the time we start reading volume 2, we'd forget volume 1. Yet another way to look at it. We can imagine a square because it's a simple object. However we can't imagine a 10 dimensional calabi yau manifold no matter how hard we try: it has more complexity that fits into our brains. If the theory behind cognition is as irreducible as that manifold, well never "get" it, even though we'll be able to describe all its local properties.
Image recognition needs no storage or retrieval of data: it's a single pass thru a series of matrix multiplications. Yet, image recognition is the very definition of data processing.
> That's easy to disprove. A calculator isn't sophisticated enough to simulate itself, but a modern computer can perfectly simulate itself.
What you say is pretty obviously false: a computer with finite memory cannot simulate itself in a general case because that would require more memory than it actually has or a compression algorithm that's effective on random data, because its memory would need to contain the emulation program plus a full memory image. Computers with infinite memory do not exist and random data is not compressible, therefore modern computers cannot perfectly simulate themselves. QED.
Because memory can be filled with random data, so that's a case that needs to be handled if a computer is to "perfectly simulate itself."
>> That's easy to disprove. A calculator isn't sophisticated enough to simulate itself, but a modern computer can perfectly simulate itself.
> Today we can run entire Linux in a web page and we can surely run a simulation of IBM PC.
You said "a modern computer can perfectly simulate itself." If you think "running Linux in a web page" is an example of that, I don't think you understood your initial statement. A modern computer can simulate a less-capable version of itself, but it cannot "perfectly simulate itself," as I showed in my comment.
It's not a good look to come in with an "easy disproof" that itself contains a pretty obvious falsehood. Also I'd wager your implicit statement that the OP's "to understand" is encompassed by your "to simulate" would be generally considered pretty controversial, at a minimum.
There is also an unending quest to explain foobar. Hard to explain something that's not defined. We can still talk about what meaning we put into this term. My favorite analogy is the flow of electrons in a processor chip is its consciousness and the algorithm it's performing is its cognition. Using this analogy, consciousness is the process that updates our world, i.e. the process that makes a photon move forward, while cognition is the logical interpretation of these updates.
Am I the only one who sees the elephant in the room? 15-30 is the prime time when women make relationships and men make money. Software engineering needs full time commitmentent and no personal life is a part of the deal. Someone who learns programming only in college will be mediocre at best and FANG doesn't want to hire mediocricy. so women have a choice: go into programming and forget about personal life, because the money they earn by 35 won't help them, or choose personal life and have no time for programming.
No. For example, I have a .org email domain. In order to make this work, everybody involved, that is dns, email hoster and various dbs, ssl certs infra, browsers and email apps, they all need to properly resolve my .org domain. It's unrealistic to expect all these parties to suddenly respect the new dns resolver.
It's the opposite. Iirc, icann was a semi gov entity and everybody complained that the internet is effectively controlled by the US gov via ICANN. So the gov decided to yield and give ICANN freedom. Sure enough, icann was quickly captured by pirates.
I was referring to the original sellout of USSR institutions during the '90s: as the world pushed the Soviets to renounce public ownership, they sold off massive assets at fire-sale prices to well-connected profiteers.
Here, .org had certain restrictions that made its governance somewhat "public". Those restrictions were removed and the asset was hurriedly sold, at a debatable price, to well-connected profiteers. Looks very similar to me.
You guys are polishing the steam engine, while we need some real progress. Typing a search query isn't much better than typing a SQL query. This should be the last resort thing.
We need a service that would organize the information for us. Instead of us telling the service what we want to see, the service should tell us what's worth attention. Some people care about NFL, so they would be given the most valuable news about NFL. Others care about superconductors, so the service presents them a daily summary of most important advances there.
