Abstract:A recent paper (van Rooij et al. 2024) claims to have proved that achieving human-like intelligence using learning from data is intractable in a complexity-theoretic sense. We identify that the proof relies on an unjustified assumption about the distribution of (input, output) pairs to the system. We briefly discuss that assumption in the context of two fundamental barriers to repairing the proof: the need to precisely define ``human-like," and the need to account for the fact that a particular machine learning system will have particular inductive biases that are key to the analysis.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is whether achieving human - like intelligence (AGI) using machine learning is infeasible in the sense of computational complexity theory. Specifically, the paper criticizes a previous study that claimed "achieving human - like intelligence by learning from data is infeasible in the sense of complexity theory." The author of this paper points out that the previous proof relied on an unreasonable assumption: that the distribution of (input, output) pairs in the data can be any polynomial - time computable distribution.
### Core Problems of the Paper
1. **Unreasonable Assumption**:
- The previous paper assumed that the distribution \( D \) of (input, output) pairs in the data can be any polynomial - time computable distribution.
- However, in reality, this distribution is structured. For example, if the input is a natural image, the distribution \( P_D(s) \) needs to consider the hierarchical structure of natural images; if the output is human chess - playing behavior, the distribution \( P_D(b|s) \) needs to conform to the rules of chess.
2. **Defining "Human - like Behavior"**:
- To prove the infeasibility of achieving human - like intelligence, one must precisely define what "human - like behavior" is. This involves how to formally describe the standards of human cognition and behavior.
3. **The Influence of Inductive Biases**:
- Machine - learning systems usually have specific inductive biases, and these biases are crucial to the performance of the system. Some structured functions can be learned through appropriate inductive biases, so it cannot be simply assumed that all functions are unlearnable.
4. **The Challenges of Subset Data**:
- Attempting to fix the proof by focusing on subsets of data also faces challenges. For example, if human behavior in the subset is generated by an irreversible mechanism, are these subsets really unlearnable? In addition, humans have limited ability to execute arbitrary algorithms and may need to use external tools (such as pen and paper), which makes the learning problem more complex.
### Main Conclusions
The paper points out that the previous proof did not fully consider the above - mentioned problems, so its conclusion is not valid. At the same time, the author believes that there are some fundamental obstacles that make it very difficult to prove the infeasibility of AGI using complexity theory. These problems include:
- How to mathematically strictly define the distribution \( D \) in AI - by - Learning.
- Whether there are unlearnable data subsets.
- How to deal with the problem of inductive biases in machine learning.
In short, this paper emphasizes the complexity and challenges faced when attempting to prove the infeasibility of AGI and points out the deficiencies of existing proofs.