Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!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: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 07:39:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 180
Message-ID: <vdu0en$17ult$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>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2024 14:39:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8241962fd725da77d4713a73e4f1f7dc";
	logging-data="1309373"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX184j4v6fIHQ7U0Qg9RnqQm3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tk2gtXy0x3x8WmSOQ5VODmRiCcQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vdtp6o$1710i$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9587

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.
>>>
>>
>> When DDD is executed before HHH its behavior its different
>> than when DDD is emulated by HHH. This is easy to see by
>> anyone that is not totally clueless about the x86 language.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========