[zer00eyz]

>> but any talk of fully automating human intuition (Turing’s Oracle!) in coming up with novel solutions to complex problems is fantasy and the computer science police department (CSPD) should issue a citation for any such talk.

You and I both intuit that there are conjectures that, likely, do not have a solution. The author is proposing (and maybe rightly) that an AI as a Turing machine with this intuition would inherently (have to) be a Turing Oracle...

It's an interesting take that has some implications...

[aSanchezStern]

Err, only if humans have to be turing oracles to have that intuition, right? Plus, the halting problem only says that you can't have a procedure which will be 100% right on 100% of programs about whether or not they halt. Relax either of those 100%s, and it becomes possible again, just like how human intuition can be right about things 90% of the time, even if those things can't possibly be predicted 100% of the time.

[zer00eyz]

Are people Turing machines is a question...

> Plus, the halting problem only says that you can't have a procedure which will be 100% right on 100% of programs about whether or not they halt.

Your missing it still...

"Given a computer program and an input, will the program terminate or will it run forever?"

We both know that the collatz conjecture likely wont ever halt. We understand that. WE are reasonable oracles. Now write me an oracle that can detect this. Dont feed a list of problems to avoid, write a program that detects these types problems and skips them... Hint, you likley cant. You could simulate one, but that would be cheating...

A real AI needs this, or needs to be able to do it, or it risks working on the collatz conjecture till the heat death of the universe, or till it consumes the universe in a paperclip style problem...

The implication is that real ai might not come out of a Turing machine ever...

[roywiggins]

The implication of the article isn't that you can't produce a Turing oracle, it's that it's mathematically impossible to ever replace programmers with computers at all.

The latter claim doesn't follow: programmers aren't Turing oracles either. A programming machine that can emulate whatever humans are doing when they program, would be able to program too.

[af3d]

FWIW the Collatz conjecture actually asserts the exact opposite, that the sequence always terminates.

[oasisaimlessly]

> We both know that the collatz conjecture likely wont ever halt.

Speak for yourself. I know that the Collatz Conjecture is an unsolved problem and so wouldn't make any strong statements about it.