But these are philosophical questions, not scientific questions. "Could God be hidden in black holes" is unknowable in the same way that "Is God a flying spaghetti monster?" is unknowable. It's not an interesting scientific question because it has nothing to do with the scientific problem of how black holes work, but with the philosophical problem of whether there is a God.

And just because engineers don't usually understand what their AI models do 'under the hood' doesn't mean they can't be understood. They are fundamentally just very complex decision trees and you could in principle see why each decision in a model was made in a certain way. It'd just take a very long time.

It affects stuff around it, but those properties can be thought to be "of the hole itself", like mass, charge etc. but we can't look inside.

Have you tried it with say an MLP or small convnet on cifar10? I think that would be the next logical step.

The dataset is more microscopy related and unfortunately I am not allowed to share :(

Should have said Accuracy.

Only MNist though. Went from 3.8% error on a simple linear model to 1.2%. In average. With 80%-20% train test split. So in no way amazing, just interesting.

Just wondered if other people had experimented more with it, since it's also a bit faster training.

> test loss decreased

What function are you using to evaluate test loss? cross entropy or this norm function?

While I agree with your sentiment on the whole... we do get some measurements on a black hole precisely because it affects things outside of itself. I'll agree with the rest as I've been studying ai. We definitely can and often do understand the paths. The reality is it would take us far longer to go through it all or ai would be pointless.

This we do not understand is complete bs. Just we can't run through the math in any reasonable time frame. Effectively we know how, just we don't know which exact path without marking it... which we can and will do sometimes.

While r/MachineLearning might in parts attract a bit less scientific crowd than other CS-related subs, expecting them to take this seriously is still very much of a stretch…

What you are alluding to is god of the gaps, not a black box theory. The mistaken belief that putting god in ever difficult places to find will, as more and more things are discovered and explained, somehow maintain his presence in this world.

As an (astro)physicist i think the only connection between the black box of AI and the black hole is the world black. Nobody is stopping you from opening the black box of AI and looking inside at the numbers. Whether that helps you or not is an entirely different matter. You can never do that with a black hole. No matter what technology you use, or what tool, you can't peer inside the black hole. And nothing of what happens inside influences what's outside, unlike the "black box" of AI.

The only point that makes sense is that little part at the end. Yes, an AI could've published this text, but even an AI that could cobble together this long text wouldn't make the mistake of comparing a black hole with a black box. Or would it? Who knows. Better question: does it matter?

This is not the answer to your question but one intuition I like about universal approximation theorem I thought I'd share is the comparison to a digital image. You use a finite set of pixels, each that can take on a certain set of discrete values. With a 10 x 10 grid of pixels you can draw a crude approximation of a stick figure. With 1000 x 1000 you can capture a blurry but recognizable selfie. Within the finite pixels and the discrete values they can take you can essentially capture anything you can dream of. Every image in every movie ever made. Obviously there are other issues later like does your models operational design domain match the distribution of the training domain or did you just waste a lot of GPU hours lol

Yeah always should first exhaust existing classical methods before reaching for deep learning.

I'd absolutely love to see those, if you're willing :)

I mean... the statement specifically uses the phrase 'arbitrary functions'. GLMs are a great tool in the toolbox, but the function family it optimizes over is very far from 'arbitrary'.

I think the statement's mostly meaning 'find very nonlinear functions of interest when dealing with very large numbers of samples from very high dimensional sample spaces'. GLM's are used in every scientific field, but certainly not for every application. Some form of deep learning really is the only game in town still for certain kinds of problems at least.

I have never seen it generate any code that is correct-in-principle, let alone usable, for any non-trivial problem. It may be useful as a kind of impressionist painting of a solution, for those who are already programmers. And for trivial code, you'd frankly be better off just learning to code.

In other words, I don't really see this being remotely useful to someone who doesn't know how to code. If anything, the barrier to entry is higher, because you will need to debug extremely unusable but convincing-looking programs. It's at best a hint or a template and at worst a hinderance.

[removed]

Lex Fridman has indeed been worked on AI, but it is clear that you haven't, so you obviously do not understand the point Lex made at all.

>yes every ai is not fully understood

A simple decision tree is an AI algorithm too. Would you claim that it is not fully understandable or that it has the potential to be sentient?

Why write 5-10 lines of code, when an LLM can write 5-10 lines of code wrong, in a subtle but vaguely plausible-looking way, so that you can spend twice as long debugging the 5-10 lines of code?

?

For discussions about the existence of god and similar topics, visit https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy

[deleted]

Lol. The fact that we use general linear models in every scientific field, and have been for decades should tell you all you need to know about this statement.

I see your point however, it is only a possibility that god was simply made up. I believe god has been made up however, I am not able to confirm it by going back in time and seeing for myself if god was made up.

I have to go to bed now, I'm not going to be able to defend my ideas anymore. If you were offended at this post or got mad at me, I am sorry. I thought this was a good idea.