I have a difficult time buying the "necessarily" part.
Yes. That's borrowed from an old theological argument.
Especially since much of the progress in machine learning is just putting more hardware and data on the same algorithms.
Yes. That's borrowed from an old theological argument.
Especially since much of the progress in machine learning is just putting more hardware and data on the same algorithms.
I assume they are implying that this thought process may not apply.
Having a star around to power things helps beat that problem.
[1] https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
As is so often the case in academia, the basic idea is hidden by all the academic jargon. The basic idea is quite simple. Suppose you roll up your sleeves, get to work, and announce to the world: "Turing machine #57835 is an AGI with truthful knowledge". Then, without even needing to run Turing machine #57835 (which might be prohibitively expensive), just as a purely logical consequence of your announcement, you can conclude that the following ordinal number A is a computable ordinal: "The supremum of all ordinals B such that B has some code k such that Turing machine #57835 knows that k is a code of a computable ordinal". By construction, this ordinal A, for which you concretely know a code, is larger than any ordinal for which Turing machine #57835 knows a code. So in at least one extremely specific technical sense (the sense of knowing codes for large ordinals), you are more intelligent than Turing machine #57835.
Which part of this argument is unclear?