That seems to involve “easily perceiving” solutions to NP problems (general proofs of properties or existence and shapes of algorithms), and I’m not sure what simplifications could be used to avoid this without getting a ton of false negatives. Also, how would this help the AI think high-level thoughts about computation?
Worse than that. Most of the properties you care about in code aren’t NP. NP is the set of decision problems such that a “yes” answer can be verified in polynomial time, given a witness string. Properties like “this program is secure/deterministic/terminates” don’t, in general, have short proofs. Many of the properties you care about are undecidable if you assume unlimited memory, and intractable even if you don’t.
In contrast, the human visual system, as I understand, mostly does constant-time work, like edge detection, checking for color differences, etc.
how would this help the AI think high-level thoughts about computation
I’m checking out of the discussion temporarily while I reread the LOGI paper. I want to make sure I have the proper context to think of the above question.
That seems to involve “easily perceiving” solutions to NP problems (general proofs of properties or existence and shapes of algorithms), and I’m not sure what simplifications could be used to avoid this without getting a ton of false negatives. Also, how would this help the AI think high-level thoughts about computation?
Worse than that. Most of the properties you care about in code aren’t NP. NP is the set of decision problems such that a “yes” answer can be verified in polynomial time, given a witness string. Properties like “this program is secure/deterministic/terminates” don’t, in general, have short proofs. Many of the properties you care about are undecidable if you assume unlimited memory, and intractable even if you don’t.
In contrast, the human visual system, as I understand, mostly does constant-time work, like edge detection, checking for color differences, etc.
I’m checking out of the discussion temporarily while I reread the LOGI paper. I want to make sure I have the proper context to think of the above question.