Search

Model RB is a model of random constraint satisfaction problems, which exhibits exact satisfiability phase transition and many hard instances, both experimentally and theoretically. Benchmarks based on Model RB have been successfully used by various international algorithm competitions and many research papers. In a previous work, Xu and Li defined two notions called i- constraint assignment tuple and flawed i- constraint assignment tuple to show an exponential resolution complexity of Model RB. These two notions are similar to some kind of consistency in constraint satisfaction problems, but seem different from all kinds of consistency so far known in literatures. In this paper, we explicitly define this kind of consistency, called variable-centered consistency, and show an upper bound on a parameter in Model RB, such that up to this bound the typical instances of Model RB are variable-centered consistent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper revisits the often debated question Can machines think? It is argued that the usual identification of machines with the notion of algorithm has been both counter-intuitive and counter-productive. This is based on the fact that the notion of algorithm just requires an algorithm to contain a finite but arbitrary number of rules. It is argued that intuitively people tend to think of an algorithm to have a rather limited number of rules. The paper will further propose a modification of the above mentioned explication of the notion of machines by quantifying the length of an algorithm. Based on that it appears possible to reconcile the opposing views on the topic, which people have been arguing about for more than half a century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their joint paper entitled “ The Replication of the Hard Problem of Consciousness in AI and BIO- AI” (Boltuc et al. Replication of the hard problem of conscious in AI and Bio- AI: An early conceptual framework ), Nicholas and Piotr Boltuc suggest that machines could be equipped with phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective consciousness that satisfies Chalmer’s hard problem (We will abbreviate the hard problem of consciousness as “H-consciousness”). The claim is that if we knew the inner workings of phenomenal consciousness and could understand its’ precise operation, we could instantiate such consciousness in a machine. This claim, called the extra- strong AI thesis, is an important claim because if true it would demystify the privileged access problem of first-person consciousness and cast it as an empirical problem of science and not a fundamental question of philosophy. A core assumption of the extra-strong AI thesis is that there is no logical argument that precludes the implementation of H-consciousness in an organic or in-organic machine provided we understand its algorithm. Another way of framing this conclusion is that there is nothing special about H-consciousness as compared to any other process. That is, in the same way that we do not preclude a machine from implementing photosynthesis, we also do not preclude a machine from implementing H-consciousness. While one may be more difficult in practice, it is a problem of science and engineering, and no longer a philosophical question. I propose that Boltuc’s conclusion, while plausible and convincing, comes at a very high price; the argument given for his conclusion does not exclude any conceivable process from machine implementation. In short, if we make some assumptions about the equivalence of a rough notion of algorithm and then tie this to human understanding, all logical preconditions vanish and the argument grants that any process can be implemented in a machine. The purpose of this paper is to comment on the argument for his conclusion and offer additional properties of H-consciousness that can be used to make the conclusion falsifiable through scientific investigation rather than relying on the limits of human understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]