Agreed. I'm speculating that they would have to embed the quantum-encrypted
code in a carrier wave and messaging envelope of sorts. It is the code that is
of importance as an embedded object. The logic should hold that as long as any
code is in a psudeo-random form, then it would contain a detectable pattern,
and could be extractable. The deciphering might be another story though, but
that should only become a quantum issue if they constructed a quantum encryptor
to generate the code with (7th-wave Enigma). Either way, I have not stumbled
upon any suggestion or evidence that machines of truly-random capabilities - as
manageable machines - currently exist. I'm but an informed layman, but given
the observed, persistent scientific issue of true randomness, I would
personally be delighted if that barrier to AGI progress was indeed crossed.
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 07:40:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [agi] SAT and Dynamic Programs of Models
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
How could they send it on the ground without using boosters? Are they using
radio? I don't believe that radio is unhackable (regardless of any claim). The
fact that radio waves can be affected by so many conditions implies that it can
be intercepted without the interception being detected.Jim Bromer
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:19 AM, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI
<[email protected]> wrote:
PS: The Chinese quantum code is hackable.
> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 23:51:26 -0400
> Subject: Re: [agi] SAT and Dynamic Programs of Models
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
>
> > Jim, can you describe an algorithm where P = NP would exponentially
> > speed up visual processing?
>
> The complexity of trying to find how each pixel (or tiny area) relates
> to other pixels is not a true Satisfiability problem until a (more
> classic-like) image analysis algorithm gathers some information. For
> example, is some area a part of the background? That is not an easy
> question because the 'background' may be quite diverse. Furthermore,
> the desired 'subjects' of an image may not be -perceived- before image
> analysis gets going. Once an algorithm starts picking up information
> than the variations of possibilities starts forming a true
> Satisfiaibilty problem although it may not be expressed in simple
> Boolean relations.
>
> While most image analysis would take place across a field of data that
> does not mean that all image analysis are essentially neural networks.
>
> I don't want to dismiss deep learning neural networks just because
> they have not achieved even shallow AGI. But look at character
> recognition. Alphabet characters have flat distinct shapes. Although
> they may vary widely, one might still design a classical algorithm
> that defines how near a subject character is to a set of training
> characters in the terms of vectors (and weighted reasoning) or
> something like that. The attempt to use of vectors with 'ideas' or
> semantic objects has been inadequate because the domains of 'ideas'
> do not all fit into a domain of vector space. Space and much of
> physics have benefited from a great deal of effective mathematical
> analysis over the centuries. So computers are great at predicting the
> weather because the averages of history (of different measures of
> events) can be combined with knowledge of the causes of the weather
> and presto - you have some great weather predictions. But if you
> wanted to push deep anns what are you going to find? You are going to
> find that you have to push up against the complexity barriers.
> Although the Boolean relations between areas of an image in an ann may
> be hidden, they are never the less creating complexity barriers. Anns
> work so well because some problems can be effectively solved by using
> multiple metric approximations.
>
> But, let's suppose that AGI will one day be accomplished using metrics
> - in other words weighted reasoning, probability and so on. I realize
> that it is a real possibility. That means that image analysis
> algorithms will be able to recognize anything a human being could
> recognize. Here the problem is not a question of taking tens or
> hundreds of flat land characteristics for tens of characters and
> coming up with a method that effectively measures how close a subject
> character is to different kinds of metrics derived from the training
> characters and then picks the closest matches, but of taking thousands
> of characteristics from thousands of objects to derive estimates of
> what is pictured. In this case the problem is combinatorially more
> complex just because there are so many more possible subjects and
> variants of those subjects. It should be clear that this is a true
> satisfiability problem even though Anns don't deal directly with the
> satisfiability issue because the acquired weights are so heavily
> distributed. The complexity barriers are effectively satisfiability
> problems even though the distinct relations may be hidden. I hope this
> makes some sense because I really don't know that much about deep
> learning Anns and I haven't really done that much image analysis.
>
> One other thing. As you know, a neural network is not the only kind of
> algorithm that can learn. So it is pretty easy to imagine an algorithm
> that is based on supervised learning to develop discreet relations
> that form networks. The relations would of course include weights and
> so on. One of the reasons I would like to develop some better SAT
> methods is that I then could develop AI models using simple concepts
> and build on it. Right now the complexity barriers are so low and so
> pervasive that you can't get any real traction unless the problem can
> be solved using weighted approximations. So weighted reasoning is way
> ahead right now but that may not always be the case. My goal is not to
> achieve detailed precision but to get some basic traction by starting
> with something simple and improving it.
>
> Jim Bromer
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Matt Mahoney via AGI <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Jim, can you describe an algorithm where P = NP would exponentially
> > speed up visual processing? My understanding is that the most advanced
> > vision algorithms use deep neural networks with a structure similar to
> > the visual cortex. In general, neural network size (in synapses)
> > should be proportional to the training set information content. Thus,
> > training time is O(n^2).
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> Matt said:
> >> Vision is a pattern recognition problem. You input a picture of a cat
> >> and output a label like "cat". It is not NP-complete because (1)
> >> experimentally, the problem scales polynomially with input size and
> >> (2) the time to verify that a label like "cat" is correct is about the
> >> same as the time it takes to label the image. Thus, the problem is in
> >> P and would not benefit even if P = NP.
> >> -------------------------------------------------
> >> This is a truly insipid response. You have taken one narrow situation
> >> and used it in an over-generalization of a kind of AGI problem. "The
> >> problem scales polynomially with input size? The point that I made is
> >> that the general analysis of imagery is presumably as bad or worse
> >> than NP (in the lexicon of the day). What I mean is that there is
> >> sufficient evidence that AGI is, in the worse case, at least
> >> exponentially difficult and that makes it worthwhile to examine why
> >> that may be. One reason, the reason I gave, is that the easiest
> >> methods to make a methodical and thorough analysis of the relations
> >> between associated pixels would be those that are (literally) in NP.
> >> The implied case of scaling a particular picture and arguing that it
> >> would scale polynomially with input size is analogous to saying that
> >> converting an unrestricted Boolean Satisfiability problem to 3-SAT
> >> scales polynomially (and that somehow proves that unrestricted SAT
> >> scales polynomially). It is pretty obvious that you have little
> >> experience with visual data.
> >>
> >> This is an example of a blatant overgeneralization being declared as
> >> if it were a factual statement. I can't casually explain why visual
> >> analysis is at least exponentially difficult because I am not enough
> >> of an expert to be that familiar with all the problems. However, I am
> >> confident that there is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that, in
> >> general, it is less difficult.
> >> Jim Bromer
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Matt Mahoney via AGI <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 2:51 AM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Matt Mahoney via AGI
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> I started wondering about how a good Satisfiability model might be
> >>>>>> used with AGI.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It wouldn't because the hard problems in AI like vision and language
> >>>>> are not NP-hard. The more useful application would be breaking nearly
> >>>>> all forms of cryptography. (One time pad would still be secure).
> >>>>> -- Matt Mahoney
> >>>>
> >>>> I seriously doubt the premise that the hard problems like vision and
> >>>> language in AI are not NP-hard.
> >>>
> >>> NP-hard means NP-complete or harder. NP-complete means that a solution
> >>> would solve any problem in NP. NP is the class of problems whose
> >>> answers can be verified in time that is a polynomial function of the
> >>> input size. P is the class of problems that can be solved in
> >>> polynomial time. It is widely believed by everyone except Jim Bromer
> >>> that P != NP. This belief is not because of any proof, but because
> >>> thousands of other people like Jim Bromer who believed P = NP failed
> >>> to find polynomial time solutions to any NP-complete problems after
> >>> years of effort until they were convinced they would be better off if
> >>> they gave up. The time it takes to give up is inversely proportional
> >>> to the person's efforts into studying the math and researching the
> >>> work of others instead of repeating their mistakes.
> >>>
> >>>> My (admittedly limited) experience
> >>>> with visual AI ran up against NP-Hard solutions that I thought would
> >>>> work.
> >>>
> >>> Vision is a pattern recognition problem. You input a picture of a cat
> >>> and output a label like "cat". It is not NP-complete because (1)
> >>> experimentally, the problem scales polynomially with input size and
> >>> (2) the time to verify that a label like "cat" is correct is about the
> >>> same as the time it takes to label the image. Thus, the problem is in
> >>> P and would not benefit even if P = NP.
> >>>
> >>>> And since language could be considered to be a form of
> >>>> cryptography then your conjunction of cases (not language but
> >>>> cryptography) does not look really strong.
> >>>
> >>> No, language is also a pattern recognition problem.
> >>>
> >>>> (Visual processing also
> >>>> might be considered to be a form of cryptography and indeed it is used
> >>>> as such in captchas.)
> >>>
> >>> Cryptography depends on the existence of one-way functions: given
> >>> function f and output f(x), you can't find input x any faster than
> >>> trying all possible values and comparing the outputs. If P = NP, then
> >>> one-way functions would not exist. You could build a circuit that
> >>> computes f and compares the output. Then set the bits of x one at a
> >>> time and ask your polynomial SAT solver if a solution exists. If not,
> >>> flip the bit before going to the next bit.
> >>>
> >>> You could argue that a captcha is a one way function. It is easy to
> >>> convert text to an image, but hard to convert it back. But it is
> >>> polynomially hard, not exponentially hard. Adding one bit to the image
> >>> doesn't double the solution time, like adding one bit to an encryption
> >>> key would.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------
> >>> AGI
> >>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> >>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5
> >>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> >>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> >>
> >>
> >> -------------------------------------------
> >> AGI
> >> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> >> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/3701026-786a0853
> >> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> >> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected]
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > AGI
> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/24379807-653794b5
> > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> AGI
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26941503-0abb15dc
> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
AGI | Archives
| Modify
Your Subscription
AGI | Archives
| Modify
Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
