Path: ...!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: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 12:14:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <vdp7q7$8eot$3@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>
 <8b646269ba7736c125f0b05a1d764d73540f16e0@i2pn2.org>
 <vdn6sj$3thq0$1@dont-email.me>
 <1263d37668d0fd03df0ab5f9617387ca66ba4f0e@i2pn2.org>
 <vdnl13$3089$1@dont-email.me>
 <5f8d06fc4934a789b337fe9924553e34f9a45586@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 19:14:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2cfea8cf782cc6fdb9f312c205ffbe28";
	logging-data="277277"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oPEwtsKbCQNPTgh5IEoQi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z4WizoJ0MaSumAgeGo+UcemiY2U=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <5f8d06fc4934a789b337fe9924553e34f9a45586@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8865

On 10/4/2024 5:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/3/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/3/2024 8:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 10/3/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 10/2/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When two execution traces differ and one expects the same behavior
>>>>>> this is the same as analogous to the insanity of doing the exact
>>>>>> same thing and expecting different results. It is merely the other
>>>>>> side. Doing an entirely different thing and expecting the same
>>>>>> results is also quite crazy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, YOU don't seem to understand that the while the pathological 
>>>>> relationship DOES affect the behavior of DDD, it doesn't mean that 
>>>>> the "correct simulation" of DDD (by anybody) will differ from the 
>>>>> actual behavior of DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the emulator ignores rather than emulates this
>>>> pathological relationship when the x86 code specifies
>>>> this pathological relationship then it is the same
>>>> kind of damned liar that you are.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, what did it actually EMULATE that differed?
>>>
>>
>> The directly executed DDD() depends on HHH aborting what
>> would otherwise be its own infinite recursive emulation.
> 
> So? Since that is what the code of that HHH does, that is what DDD does.
> 

When DDD is executed first it has provably different
halting behavior than when DDD is emulated by the same
emulator that it calls.

Everyone besides Mike is simply not bright enough
to see this. Mike can see this yet refuses to admit
that he sees this.


========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========