Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- different
 execution traces have different behavior !!!
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2024 16:01:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <vdn0nv$3sa9k$1@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 23:01:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bfbea23d5000955aa81771e37aefd434";
	logging-data="4073780"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zmAUGgvSwAnW3lCIH7vyT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RLR5uLdviq+kWjN5Cf57zEt9Ccw=
In-Reply-To: <vdm1tl$3npme$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7237

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.

Do an entirely different thing and expecting the same results
is just as insane as doing the same thing and expecting different results.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer