Hacker News Reader

Comment by IIAOPSW | Hacker News Reader

You just need to find a small spanning set of concepts for all of human experience and then just train the decoder on those.

(I'm being serious but do not have time to elaborate as I normally would on a serious comment).

View on HN

In /Interface/ (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6563920-interface), they imagine kind of the opposite of this: They have a primitive mind-machine interface and probe all the different kinds of sensations it can transmit to a person's mind --the smell of apple pie is one example--and train them to associate it with some meaning (in this example, the guy is a politician and associates apple pie with "American values"). Then the campaign manager can press the "apple pie" button, which causes the politician to smell apple pie, indicating that he should should transition to talking about "American values" in his speech.

I would assume that those spanning sets would differ between individuals to a significant degree, so you'd still have to do the more extensive training to determine and verify a working spanning set in the first place. Maybe after training with a large number of people, certain typical patterns will emerge that can be used to speed up the process, but I suspect you'll still have to deal with a lot of individual variation.

Not a finite set of concepts per se, but a finite set of patterns that hides behind the near infinite set of all possible concepts.

A vector basis set for all human experience sounds like it’d be pretty neat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_of_translation

Do you mind giving me an eli5 of what the indeterminacy of translation states? I don’t have much of a philosophy background.

" A vector basis set for all human experience sounds like it’d be pretty impossible and actually incoherent and anti-empirical."

Why would it be impossible? Everything about a human being can theoretically be deterministically simulated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com