Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 3:34:43 GMT -5
In this second article I will try to go into depth and clarify some aspects discussed in the first because it could be thought that the possibilities of the so-called current and future artificial intelligence - especially future - are a technological problem when, in reality, they are insurmountable logical limitations. And the latter always put a limit on technology. And the problem is that the promise of solving some of humanity's problems ends up becoming a religion, just as Catholicism promises the kingdom of heaven to the poor and suffering in this world for their consolation. I will begin by returning to the problem of the stopping of the universal Turing machine because this is not a problem that technology can solve, no matter how much our imagination can fly to the confines of what is desirable. I'll explain it again. A Turing machine consists of a head where it has a program – the state of the machine – and a tape that passes through the head (1), a tape that we assume is infinite, and where both the data and the instructions are written.
On the tape are the instructions and the data reduced to ones and zeros, that is, whether the current passes or does not pass. Any information can be reduced to zeros and ones using conversion tables. We have said that the tape is infinite and, in principle, the machine is given infinite time, although the normal thing is that this is limited by practical issues, because a Australia Phone Number supposed artificial intelligence that would need infinite time to make a decision and execute it it would be of no use. When a 0 or a 1 reaches the head - at this moment the head has a certain program - it can change its state - the program will vary - or not change it and then, depending on the state - the program - it can change the zero for the one if you get a zero, the one for the zero if you get a one, or do none of these, and then you must move the tape to the right or left to read the next character. And if you don't move the belt, the machine stops, either because it has solved the task or because the instructions tell it to stop. But this is already a problem because if it separates we are left without a machine for another task. Think of the Turing machine as an automaton that must act by itself without any human being restarting it when it stops.
If we encounter a Turing machine, what do we do if it is stopped or what do we do if we want it to stop to discern if a task has been completed? And here comes the genius of Turing, because he imagines a universal machine that would do the opposite of that particular machine.and concrete and that that universal machine injected that program into the particular machine. It would seem that we have solved the problem because, when the particular machine stops, the universal machine tells it to start and, at some point, it tells it to stop if the head of the particular machine has not received instructions – then it would change state. through the tape to make it stop. In short, the universal machine would give contrary instructions to the particular machine, telling it to start when the particular machine stops and to stop when it has exceeded a reasonable time for reading the tape. But, at that point, Turing wondered what would happen if, instead of passing the instructions from the universal machine to a particular one, it passed them to itself! Well, it would happen that, when it received the instructions to stop, the state – the program – would tell it to continue and, when it received the instructions to continue, to stop. The result is a disaster because this is an insurmountable logical contradiction for the machine.
On the tape are the instructions and the data reduced to ones and zeros, that is, whether the current passes or does not pass. Any information can be reduced to zeros and ones using conversion tables. We have said that the tape is infinite and, in principle, the machine is given infinite time, although the normal thing is that this is limited by practical issues, because a Australia Phone Number supposed artificial intelligence that would need infinite time to make a decision and execute it it would be of no use. When a 0 or a 1 reaches the head - at this moment the head has a certain program - it can change its state - the program will vary - or not change it and then, depending on the state - the program - it can change the zero for the one if you get a zero, the one for the zero if you get a one, or do none of these, and then you must move the tape to the right or left to read the next character. And if you don't move the belt, the machine stops, either because it has solved the task or because the instructions tell it to stop. But this is already a problem because if it separates we are left without a machine for another task. Think of the Turing machine as an automaton that must act by itself without any human being restarting it when it stops.
If we encounter a Turing machine, what do we do if it is stopped or what do we do if we want it to stop to discern if a task has been completed? And here comes the genius of Turing, because he imagines a universal machine that would do the opposite of that particular machine.and concrete and that that universal machine injected that program into the particular machine. It would seem that we have solved the problem because, when the particular machine stops, the universal machine tells it to start and, at some point, it tells it to stop if the head of the particular machine has not received instructions – then it would change state. through the tape to make it stop. In short, the universal machine would give contrary instructions to the particular machine, telling it to start when the particular machine stops and to stop when it has exceeded a reasonable time for reading the tape. But, at that point, Turing wondered what would happen if, instead of passing the instructions from the universal machine to a particular one, it passed them to itself! Well, it would happen that, when it received the instructions to stop, the state – the program – would tell it to continue and, when it received the instructions to continue, to stop. The result is a disaster because this is an insurmountable logical contradiction for the machine.