| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<ve0i7r$1n4d9$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.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: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 06:55:39 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 193 Message-ID: <ve0i7r$1n4d9$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> <vdu0en$17ult$1@dont-email.me> <ve04fu$1l09u$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2024 13:55:40 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b7a476f4f1bd10a7e0a71ff615734438"; logging-data="1806761"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bnH5EnDfjd7beu76Us4pv" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+lk+fx1q/65YOfefjuw6RgGEKMc= In-Reply-To: <ve04fu$1l09u$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10301 On 10/7/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-10-06 12:39:51 +0000, olcott said: > >> 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 ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========