| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vdq66f$jf7k$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Even Google AI Overview understands me now --- different execution traces have different behavior !!! Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 20:53:19 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 244 Message-ID: <vdq66f$jf7k$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> <8b646269ba7736c125f0b05a1d764d73540f16e0@i2pn2.org> <vdn6sj$3thq0$1@dont-email.me> <1263d37668d0fd03df0ab5f9617387ca66ba4f0e@i2pn2.org> <vdnl13$3089$1@dont-email.me> <5f8d06fc4934a789b337fe9924553e34f9a45586@i2pn2.org> <vdp7q7$8eot$3@dont-email.me> <ab89296446c0b7827f304f138347765967baf478@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2024 03:53:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fddd3188853e47b8727e9d0ff63d5f8f"; logging-data="638196"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Y493rb2U7V5ZxNdnkqE9R" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:lHg+oZB9XdSfKNuhClx3czcKdRA= In-Reply-To: <ab89296446c0b7827f304f138347765967baf478@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US On 10/4/2024 5:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/4/24 1:14 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. >> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========