On Monday, March 03, 2025, at 1:13 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> A quantum computation has 3 steps.
1. Set n qubits to a superposition of 2^n states, each represented by
a vector of n complex components, such that the sum of the squares of
the magnitudes of the components add up to 1. This means you ha
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 4:26 AM John Rose wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 25, 2025, at 2:11 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
>
> printf("I am conscious."); // Is this a lie?
>
>
> printf("I am conscious.") alone is p-zombie code.
>
> You need perhaps a qcprintf("I am conscious.") where qcprintf does a print
On Tuesday, February 25, 2025, at 2:11 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> printf("I am conscious."); // Is this a lie?
printf("I am conscious.") alone is p-zombie code.
You need perhaps a qcprintf("I am conscious.") where qcprintf does a printf
transition from quantum to classical. Then what would the as
Philosophy is arguing about the meanings of words. We can define
"consciousness" as something we can observe or can't observe, but not both.
If we try anyway, we have a philosophical zombie, exactly like a human by
any possible test, except different.
I asked ChatGPT and DeepSeek if they have cons
On Monday, February 24, 2025, at 7:42 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> A zombie is exactly like a human by every possible test, and only differs in
> that it lacks qualia and phenomenal consciousness
The qualia are in the beables of the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation or
basically particle configuration
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025, 3:25 PM John Rose wrote:
> On Saturday, February 22, 2025, at 5:49 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
>
> We have LLMs that pass the Turing test. That means you can't tell whether
> you are talking to a person or a machine. There is no definition or test of
> consciousness you can give
On Saturday, February 22, 2025, at 5:49 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> We have LLMs that pass the Turing test. That means you can't tell whether you
> are talking to a person or a machine. There is no definition or test of
> consciousness you can give me that doesn't either make both of them conscious
On Sunday, February 23, 2025, at 10:11 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> If, for example, quantum solvers can break the bitcoin blockchain, it can
> only mean that an update of some kind has taken place that depends on the
> quantum solver. Nor does the human mind have to be either classical or
> quant
On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 4:49 PM Matt Mahoney
wrote:
> The brain is not a quantum computer. We know this because it updates
> memory, which is not a unitary operation, which means that you can't
> reverse the operation to return to a past state.
>
If, for example, quantum solvers can break the b
SECQAI is launching a QLLM though it may still be in simulation phase but there
are more in the works:
https://quantumzeitgeist.com/quantum-ai-model-launched-by-secqai-puts-quantum-llms-on-the-map/
--
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink:
ht
On Sunday, February 23, 2025, at 1:14 AM, Keyvan M. Sadeghi wrote:
> Useful training data, the kind that gives rise to intelligent behavior, is
> still confined to the physical world, unless we develop tech to harvest it
> from within computers. Quantum computing is interesting for that reason.
The idea that we're merely flash drives passing information to the next
generation seems consistent with our history. There's also evidence
suggesting we're all fake and that superposition is real. Can we build AGI
without an underlying quantum mechanism? Seems very likely. It's also
probable that
On Saturday, February 22, 2025, at 5:49 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> Anyone who has made actual progress toward AGI knows the question is
> meaningless. Why bother with consciousness when all you need is text
> prediction?
This is simply not true. There are a growing number of contributing AGI
res
The quantum woo theorem:
Consciousness is mysterious.
Quantum mechanics is mysterious.
Therefore consciousness is quantum.
No it's not. The brain is not a quantum computer. We know this because it
updates memory, which is not a unitary operation, which means that you
can't reverse the operation to
On Wednesday, February 19, 2025, at 11:26 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> How do you study what you can't even define? Exactly what test are you using
> to distinguish a conscious human from a zombie LLM passing the Turing test by
> using nothing more than text prediction? Doesn't this prove there is n
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 12:13 AM Keyvan M. Sadeghi
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025, 11:26 PM Matt Mahoney
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly what test are you using to distinguish a conscious human from a
>> zombie LLM passing the Turing test by using nothing more than text
>> prediction?
>>
>
> Isn't it so c
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025, 11:26 PM Matt Mahoney wrote:
>
> Exactly what test are you using to distinguish a conscious human from a
> zombie LLM passing the Turing test by using nothing more than text
> prediction?
>
Isn't it so cool that "Artificial" Intelligence is free to carve its own
path to con
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025, 4:37 PM John Rose wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2025, at 1:42 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
>
> Space, time, and matter are not fundamental. Physics tells us what we
> observe, not what is. The key property of an observer is not consciousness,
> but simply memory. Writing to
On Wednesday, February 19, 2025, at 1:42 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
> Space, time, and matter are not fundamental. Physics tells us what we
> observe, not what is. The key property of an observer is not consciousness,
> but simply memory. Writing to memory is not time symmetric because the prior
>
wrote:
> The key property of an observer is not consciousness, but simply memory.
> Writing to memory is not time symmetric because the prior content is erased
> irreversibly. This is why time seems to us to have a direction. The
> difference between past and future is what you know.
>
👏
This
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025, 5:50 PM Keyvan M. Sadeghi
wrote:
Also planck time, can't go smaller than that on this side of space-time,
> right?
>
Time is not discrete even at the Planck level as far as we know. The
universe wrote 10^90 bits over its lifetime of 10^60 Planck time units.
We don't have a
> tells me that perception of time is measured in bits per second.
>
Correct. The keyword is "perception". We only perceive time because we have
a beating heart. We won't exit time through some fictional miracle but
through non-biological skins that will become an option.
Since the learning rate
Your equation "life = meaning/time" tells me that perception of time is
measured in bits per second. Since the learning rate goes to infinity at a
singularity, that tells me that a singularity seems infinitely far into the
future. There is no "after" a singularity.
But I don't believe there will b
23 matches
Mail list logo
