MikeWise1618

MikeWise1618 t1_j67w5w6 wrote

It is a direct decendent of the same techniques used to help you type by predicting the next word on smartphones and chat programs.

People found they could improve those models using trained artificial neural networks to learn prediction patterns. These evolved into very large models that have to train for very long times on humongous amounts of data on a very large number of computers.

Papers on these have been criticized for showing little architectural innovation or cognitive insight., just scaling things up massively.

But the results certainly produce many hitherto obtainable aspects of human intelligent discourse, even it is impossible yet to tell if any cognitive model building is going on in that artificial neural network.

2

MikeWise1618 t1_iyf5a1o wrote

That's not what I see there. It leads with the statement that numerical simulation is invalid after a few 10s of millions of years.

It then points out that n-body problems can only be handled that way.

It goes on with investigations of known resonances and puts limits on their behavior.

I don't see 100 percent anywhere.

1

MikeWise1618 t1_iycuab7 wrote

Intuitively very little. And we can simulate that for a bit.

But theoretically we have a problem. Our math and physics can't even prove the configuration we have is stable even though the evidence very strongly indicates that it is - seeing that we can tell that there have probably been no major changes in things for billions of years despite constant perturbation coming from comets and other things probing the system.

So the answer is probably not but we can't be sure, theory doesn't help much and simulation suffers from exponential growth of measurement error in the initial state.

11