If you want to record the motion of the planets, naively you have large tables of positions.
To compress that, you may smoothly interpolate sparse positions.
To compress that, you encode the laws of gravity and simulate from a starting state.
Compression is literally understanding.
Yes. Compression constitutes necessary conditions for understanding. But don't forget recomposition as well.
Add recursion to the mix and it results in recursive compression and recomposition - making understanding itself a self existing entity.
This is as close to an understanding god you can rigorously get to.
Recursion is not needed when you regress system components to its foundamental representations, which can be derived without any recursion involved. In the thread example, I don't need to recursively determine how to compress how a planet orbits a mass. I only need to 'jump to the end' by define the rules of gravity and the mass/velocity of the bodies. What I'm driving at: I am suspicious of "Recursion is the Key" to better intelligence as it moves the goal post of understanding intelligence to 'mere' reflections without having to address other qualities of representations, qualia, novelty, etc.
Apparently you misunderstood. What made you think I claimed recursion as the key to better intelligence?
Clearly you will have noticed that I agree with compression and merely remind one not to forget "recomposition".
But once you add recursion to the "mix", we immediately enter the domain of self existing entities.
Then things get interesting.
If understanding == compression + recomposition, then recursion(compression + recomposition) yields what can be thought of as a self existing "understanding" entity.
A sort of philosophical "understanding god" of sorts.
very odd. hopefully it will go away soon.
Honestly — it's annoying — and you're right to pushback on this. One Caveat worth mentioning: AI fatigue is real, and worth handling. It directly affects what's load bearing in the community — The discussion itself.
The fact that I can produce the previous paragraph is evidence enough that LLMs are frying my brain.
Good content, regardless of who generated it, should be cherished.
A community that is affected by LLM generated text but otherwise good content is not worth being part of.
The corollary is also true. Hollow content generated by a human or an LLM needs pushback. I agree with you as long as the same standards are applied for humans as well.
But I'd like to remind you of other times in history when one group hated the way another group speaks.
Was it rational? Or was it tribalism?
I'm not saying it's definite - but I am seeing a pattern.
It means my content was linguistically well-structured that people confuse it to be machine generated. What more praise can one expect :)