On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:48:48PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > (c) A random string of binary code is run on a computer. There exists a > programming language which, when a program is written in this language so > that it is the same program as in (a) and (b), then compiled, the binary > code so produced is the same as this random string. > > Is this nonsense? Is (c) fundamentally different from (b)? If not, doesn't > it mean that any random string implements any program? We might not know > what it says, but if the program is self-aware, then by definition *it* > knows.
The space of all binary strings is vastly larger than the space of strings constituting a valid program, and the space of "aware" (AI) programs is again a tiny subset. It's a pretty sterile (and very rugged) fitness landscape. The probability of finding a nontrivial program by pure chance is about the same as a pebble in Gobi hopping through a fluke in Brownian noise. (More abstract machines can be more forgiving, in regards of what is well-formed). -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org";>leitl</a> ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
