It is not done until you agree that the Tarski Undefinability Theorem is incorrect.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:26 amALREADY DONE, so let us MOVE ON.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:39 pm?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Copyright 2021 PL Olcott
The above has not been done until I did it.
It conclusively proves that the Liar Paradox is semantic gibberish.
Once we understand that the Liar Paradox is semantic gibberish that can
be detected and rejected it can no longer be used as the basis of the
Tarski Undefinability theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... neral_form
Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
-
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
-
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
These things could cause me to get murdered.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:29 amWho REALLY cares about some Truly INSIGNIFICANT TINY election in some Truly INSIGNIFICANT country, in some Truly INSIGNIFICANT period?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:43 pmA Chatbot and a human with a sufficient model of the world will bothAge wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 3:13 am
LOL
you say and claim here that some so-called 'chatbot' could complete some model, and then 'effectively argue', for that model above here. But, let us NOT forget that even 'you', a human being', just SAID there there was not enough sufficient evidence to change the results.
So, 'you', "yourself', have, ALREADY, JUST DONE what you say is NOT impossible for a chatbot to be able to do.
Besides this OBVIOUS Fact NO computer could make ANY such CLAIM as there is NO evidence existing, for some 'thing', if 'you', human beings, have NOT YET DECIDED, we are STILL AT, WHEN you discover and/or work out what 'it' is EXACTLY what 'truth', itself, is solely depended upon, then we can MOVE ALONG and PROGRESS here.
know that there is no evidence of election fraud that would change
the 2020 election. This same Chatbot or human would also know that
there is much evidence that claims of election fraud are deliberate lies.
-
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
It seems to me that you explained nothing and merely baselessly disagreed.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:30 amAs I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED what you want here can NOT happen.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:48 pmAge wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:46 am
ONLY and SOLELY BECAUSE that information PREXISTED BEFORE that PROGRAMMED 'chatgpt' went and did what 'it' was PROGRAMMED TO DO. Which is to just find ALREADY EXISTING information. 'chatgpt' is NOT programmed to just 'MAKE UP' whatever 'it' DECIDES nor WANTS 'to make up'.
None-the-less Chatbot does fabricate fake facts and the reason for this is
currently not sufficiently understood. Some corrective action has been taken.
The goalposts of deriving a good conclusion have been moved. Now the rewards
will be at each inference step.
My recommendation is to encode a True(L, X) predicate so that the
system has some way to distinguish verified facts from pure fiction.
So, let us, AGAIN, move along here.
-
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
You made the false statement that computers can only learnAge wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:31 amyou KEEP MISSING the POINT.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:50 pm"you appear to KEEP MISSING the Fact that a computer can ONLY 'decide'Age wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:41 am
you appear to KEEP MISSING the Fact that a computer can ONLY 'decide' based upon the ACTUAL person, who 'programmed' ' the computer'. A computer does NOT make decisions itself. A computer just 'puts out' based solely upon what has been 'put in', again by 'you', human beings. So, what this means is if there is absolutely ANY bias within the human being, programming the computer, then 'this bias' could all to easily and simply be transferred into 'the computer' as well.
The 'biases', by the way, which ALL of 'you', adult human beings, HAVE can be very easily NOTICED and SEEN.
based upon the ACTUAL person, who 'programmed' ' the computer'."
With deep learning large language models this is no longer true. Within
these models the machines are mostly self-taught.
what that have been taught and ever since Deep Learning
Large Language Models this is flat out false. In this case almost
everything that a computer system learns it does so on its
own without any human intervention.
Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
But I have NEVER even thought that it was correct, let alone ever said that it was.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:12 pmIt is not done until you agree that the Tarski Undefinability Theorem is incorrect.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:26 amALREADY DONE, so let us MOVE ON.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:39 pm
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
Copyright 2021 PL Olcott
The above has not been done until I did it.
It conclusively proves that the Liar Paradox is semantic gibberish.
Once we understand that the Liar Paradox is semantic gibberish that can
be detected and rejected it can no longer be used as the basis of the
Tarski Undefinability theorem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... neral_form
Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
Which, in the scheme of things, is even far less insignificant.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:13 pmThese things could cause me to get murdered.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:29 amWho REALLY cares about some Truly INSIGNIFICANT TINY election in some Truly INSIGNIFICANT country, in some Truly INSIGNIFICANT period?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:43 pm
A Chatbot and a human with a sufficient model of the world will both
know that there is no evidence of election fraud that would change
the 2020 election. This same Chatbot or human would also know that
there is much evidence that claims of election fraud are deliberate lies.
Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
A computer could NOT 'decide' upon the 'things', which you talk about here.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:14 pmIt seems to me that you explained nothing and merely baselessly disagreed.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:30 amAs I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED what you want here can NOT happen.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:48 pm
None-the-less Chatbot does fabricate fake facts and the reason for this is
currently not sufficiently understood. Some corrective action has been taken.
The goalposts of deriving a good conclusion have been moved. Now the rewards
will be at each inference step.
My recommendation is to encode a True(L, X) predicate so that the
system has some way to distinguish verified facts from pure fiction.
So, let us, AGAIN, move along here.
As I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED and SHOWN ABOVE here.
Now for those who do NOT BELIEVE that computers could 'decide', then I can and WILL provide FURTHER irrefutable proof, that is; if ANY more was needed.
Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
WHERE have I EVER made such a claim as this?PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:18 pmYou made the false statement that computers can only learnAge wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:31 amyou KEEP MISSING the POINT.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 04, 2023 2:50 pm
"you appear to KEEP MISSING the Fact that a computer can ONLY 'decide'
based upon the ACTUAL person, who 'programmed' ' the computer'."
With deep learning large language models this is no longer true. Within
these models the machines are mostly self-taught.
what that have been taught and ever since Deep Learning
Large Language Models this is flat out false.
you ARE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSING the POINT here.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:18 pm In this case almost
everything that a computer system learns it does so on its
own without any human intervention.
you ARE ALSO DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING here TO REMEDY this.
-
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm
Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
In other words you are asserting that conditional branch instructions are a fiction just likeAge wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:26 pmA computer could NOT 'decide' upon the 'things', which you talk about here.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:14 pmIt seems to me that you explained nothing and merely baselessly disagreed.
As I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED and SHOWN ABOVE here.
Now for those who do NOT BELIEVE that computers could 'decide', then I can and WILL provide FURTHER irrefutable proof, that is; if ANY more was needed.
fairies and trolls. I disagree.
Re: Why is The Gettier problem still considered an open issue?
your ASSUMPTIONS ARE leading you COMPLETELY ASTRAY here "pete olcott", which could help explaining WHY someone keeps repeating, ' you are an idiot “pete olcott" '.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:01 pmIn other words you are asserting that conditional branch instructions are a fiction just likeAge wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 1:26 pmA computer could NOT 'decide' upon the 'things', which you talk about here.PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:14 pm
It seems to me that you explained nothing and merely baselessly disagreed.
As I have ALREADY PARTLY EXPLAINED and SHOWN ABOVE here.
Now for those who do NOT BELIEVE that computers could 'decide', then I can and WILL provide FURTHER irrefutable proof, that is; if ANY more was needed.
fairies and trolls. I disagree.