soist

Most practitioners seem to understand that what they are doing is creating executable models and they don't confuse the model based on numeric observations with the actual reality. This is why I very much do not like all the AI hype and how statistical models were rebranded as artificial "intelligence" because the people who are not aware of what the words mean get very confused and start thinking they are nothing more than computers executing algorithms to fit numerical data to some unspecified cognitive model.

This is a common retort. You can read my other comments if you want to understand why you're not really addressing my points because I have already addressed how reductionism does not apply to living organisms but it does apply to computers.

Rephrase your question. I don't know what you're asking.

What value is being optimized and how do you know it is too much or not enough?

And I am saying they are confused because they are attributing personal characteristics to computers and software. By spelling out what computers are doing it becomes very obvious that there is nothing that can be aware of any experiences in computers as it is all simply a sequence of arithmetic operations. If you can explain which sequence of arithmetic operations corresponds to "experiences" in computers then you might be less confused than all the people who keep claiming computers can think and feel.

Just making sure no one is confused by common computationalist sophistry and how they attribute personal characteristics to computers and software. People can have and can create experiences, computers can only execute their programmed instructions.

I am familiar with the literature on reinforcement learning.

There is no such thing as too much optimization. Early stopping is to prevent overfitting to the training set. It's a trick just like most advances in deep learning because the underlying mathematics is fundamentally not suited for creating intelligent agents.

AlphaZero did not create any experiences. AlphaZero was software written by people to play board games and that's all it ever did.

Every software platform is essentially a digital panopticon and as AI gets deployed more widely in the real world this will also be increasingly true for non-software interactions. My guess is everyone is eventually going to carry an AI "assistant" that records all signals and gives guidance to its owner just like most people in the developed world today carry a cell phone and a credit card.

The Church-Turing thesis is a meta-mathematical statement and it neither has a proof nor disproof. In any case, this discussion has run its course.

Unknown physics is happening all the time almost by definition but as I said in another thread, good luck with your computations.

I expect claims to be backed by evidence that is consistent with our current state of knowledge. I have seen no such evidence so that's why I asked for references. In any case, this discussion has run its course, best of luck to you and your future computations.