| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<b5bff7b74eac8c4382c49942fbecd95d0fb66c43@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- different execution traces have different behavior !!! Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 12:59:51 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <b5bff7b74eac8c4382c49942fbecd95d0fb66c43@i2pn2.org> References: <vdgpbs$2nmcm$1@dont-email.me> <vdgqhn$2nmcm$2@dont-email.me> <7c6cede5237e3eafee262c74dd1a1c90c6b2ffbb@i2pn2.org> <vdhblt$2qm1j$2@dont-email.me> <cafee8d7a14edd7b1d76bb706c36eef06ae82896@i2pn2.org> <vdi0f8$2u1aq$1@dont-email.me> <53a60609211a04a123adafa525bac39b5cbc6959@i2pn2.org> <vdjlum$38t86$4@dont-email.me> <bf681f4404a7df8e3ffc2059dcd7c5c302aeeff1@i2pn2.org> <vdkud3$3ipp4$1@dont-email.me> <vdm1tl$3npme$1@dont-email.me> <vdn0nv$3sa9k$1@dont-email.me> <vdob4p$5sfp$1@dont-email.me> <vdovie$8eot$1@dont-email.me> <vdqsrj$mmcu$1@dont-email.me> <vdrafr$oita$1@dont-email.me> <vdtp6o$1710i$1@dont-email.me> <vdu0en$17ult$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 16:59:51 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="847026"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: <vdu0en$17ult$1@dont-email.me> Bytes: 10875 Lines: 222 On 10/6/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote: > On 10/6/2024 5:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-10-05 12:12:43 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 10/5/2024 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-10-04 14:54:06 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 10/4/2024 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-10-03 21:01:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/3/2024 7:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-10-03 02:09:39 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2024 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/2/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/24 7:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/2024 12:58 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 01 Oct 2024 12:31:41 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/2024 8:09 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 01 Oct 2024 07:39:18 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/1/2024 7:19 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.google.com/search? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> q=Termination+Analyzer+H+is+Not+Fooled+by+Pathological+Input+D&sca_esv=889093c5cb21af9e&sca_upv=1&source=hp&ei=Muf7ZpOyMZHfwN4PwYL2gAc&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZvv1Qg04jNg2ze170z3a8BSGu8pA29Fj&ved=0ahUKEwiTk7zkk-2IAxWRL9AFHUGBHXAQ4dUDCBg&uact=5&oq=Termination+Analyzer+H+is+Not+Fooled+by+Pathological+Input+D&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjxUZXJtaW5hdGlvbiBBbmFseXplciBIIGlzIE5vdCBGb29sZWQgYnkgUGF0aG9sb2dpY2FsIElucHV0IERIAFAAWABwAHgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEDyAEA- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AEC-AEBmAIAoAIAmAMAkgcAoAcA&sclient=gws-wiz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It sounds like it’s trained on your spam. LLMs don’t >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked: „What happens when HHH tries to simulate itself?” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ChatGPT: [my comments in brackets] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ### 1. **Self-Invocation in HHH** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If `HHH` calls itself (i.e., `HHH(HHH)`), it creates an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite loop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of calls unless there is some form of termination >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> condition built into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `HHH`. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without such a condition, `HHH` would never return, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resulting in non- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> termination. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [So not a decider.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ### 2. **Halting Criteria** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In a well-designed termination analyzer, `HHH` would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific logic to prevent endless recursion: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Not present.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ### 3. **Practical Consequences** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If `HHH` lacks the ability to handle self-referential >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls correctly: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - **Stack Overflow**: Continuous self-invocation will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eventually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exhaust the stack memory, leading to a stack overflow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Not considered in theory.] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - **Incorrect Results**: If not designed carefully, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may lead to an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect conclusion about halting, misrepresenting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself as either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting or non-halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ### 4. **Best Practices for Termination Analyzers** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To avoid these pitfalls, a termination analyzer should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implement: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - **Guard Clauses**: Checks at the beginning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function to prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessary self-simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - **State Management**: A way to track the functions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being analyzed, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing `HHH` to recognize if it's being invoked with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself and act >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordingly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ### Conclusion In summary, if `HHH` tries to simulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper safeguards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it risks falling into an infinite recursion or causing a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overflow. A robust design would include checks to prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-invocation, ensuring the termination analyzer can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases, including its own function, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gracefully. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You can continue this conversation with ChatGPT* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ll leave that to you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Click on the link and see how it answers this question: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is H a Halt Decider for D? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should feed it our objections. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you believe in it only when you prompt it, it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suited as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority (fallacious anyway). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You feed it your objections. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It will tell you how and why you are wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, it will tell you something that matches the words you >>>>>>>>>>>> told it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand what Large Language Models are. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to forget that LLM know nothing of the "truth", >>>>>>>>>>>> only what matches their training data. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They are know to be liars, just like you. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the case of their evaluation of my work they are correct. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Try this yourself* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://chatgpt.com/share/66fbec5c-7b10-8011-9ce6-3c26424cb21c >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does HHH have to abort its emulation of DDD to prevent the >>>>>>>>>>> infinite execution of DDD? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Try asking it >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why is it ok for HHH to say that DDD doesn't halt when it will >>>>>>>>>> when run? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You guys try to pretend that the pathological relationship between >>>>>>>>> HHH and DDD does not make any difference to the behavior of DDD >>>>>>>>> knowing full well that it does make a difference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The behaviour of DDD is what DDD does if executed. As DDD takes >>>>>>>> no input >>>>>>>> its behavour is always the same. What does "make a difference" mean >>>>>>>> in this context? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The behavior of the directly executed DDD is essentially the >>>>>>> behavior of what would otherwise be infinite recursion except >>>>>>> that the second recursive call has already been aborted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not the same as the behavior of DDD correctly emulated >>>>>>> by the same emulator that it calls where HHH cannot rely on DDD >>>>>>> being aborted by any other process than itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> So the behaviour of DDD "correctly" emulated is not the behaviour >>>>>> of DDD. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Directly executed DDD can rely on having its second invocation >>>>> aborted by HHH is different behavior than DDD emulated by HHH >>>>> according to the behavior specified by x86 the machine code of >>>>> DDD and HHH where HHH cannot rely on DDD having already been >>>>> aborted by anything else. >>>> >>>> DDD does not "rely" on anything. It simply is a specification of >>>> a behaviour. >>>> >>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========