Isn’t “this program is thinking about X” a kind of semantic property?
By the definition used in the theorem, no. Semantic means input/output.
Rice’s theorem has low applicability to real life. You rarely need to take a completely arbitrary program as input, and when you do, non-semantic properties (e.g. this program does something within the first 10^9999 years of running it) are more interesting to you than semantic ones.
“Turing-completeness” is something of a pop-sci notion with no one precise meaning. Neural networks as used in LLMs can’t loop forever, which makes Rice’s theorem not apply to them.
By the definition used in the theorem, no. Semantic means input/output.
Rice’s theorem has low applicability to real life. You rarely need to take a completely arbitrary program as input, and when you do, non-semantic properties (e.g. this program does something within the first 10^9999 years of running it) are more interesting to you than semantic ones.
“Turing-completeness” is something of a pop-sci notion with no one precise meaning. Neural networks as used in LLMs can’t loop forever, which makes Rice’s theorem not apply to them.