Wednesday, October 7, 2020

Infinity Loop Catching

Humanity, for the most part, seems to suffer from a lack of foresight. There are many who demand that action X be taken immediately and without delay despite not considering the far-reaching consequences of this action. Even worse is when they do consider these consequences but deem them acceptable regardless, because it's 'just good enough'. If we take as an example your apparent concern with catching infinity loops in algorithms then I would argue that humanity has failed to resolve or even identify what constitutes an infinity loop in a given algorithm.

The reason for this is that there are no concrete, satisfactory definitions of infinity loops. Infinity loops can be defined in many ways and therefore it is difficult to establish how one would go about finding them. We could try to define an infinity loop as being when a function f takes some value x and then repeatedly calls itself on the result of f(x) until we get into an infinite recursion (where i = 0 implies looping). But what if the code doesn't explicitly call itself? What if something else in the system causes it to happen? This seems like such a minor issue but actually has significant ramifications.

If we examine the way in which infinity loops are supposedly caught by current programming languages (e.g. Java, Python), we find that they involve a runtime error. This means that it's up to the program to detect and report this error correctly. There are many complications related to defining what an 'infinity loop' is exactly and how it should be reported when detected: whether there could be more than one such loop occurring at once within a given function or not, if this can lead to other problems aside from simply consuming all available memory (whereas infinite recursion on its own may not have side effects beyond slowing down execution speed), whether certain functions should be treated differently than others in terms of their ability/inability to suffer from these loops etc.

It is only natural that a program would be written to assume it cannot ever suffer from an infinity loop. Otherwise, the programmer has essentially poisoned their own software by creating one of these loops without realizing it! This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of detecting infinity loops because when this assumption isn't true and there is such a loop within the code then...

Thus one must be very careful in designing a program that can actually detect infinity loops. For example, if we define an infinity loop to simply mean that a function repeatedly calls itself without bound then the only way to truly catch it is by performing some kind of continual analysis on the code and its execution state (the program's state at each step). But this seems like overkill because many functions don't even run infinitely but either exit normally or throw an exception.

The way to fix this would be to focus on the runtime exception and not on an arbitrary infinite recursion. But what if there is no single runtime exception that's thrown by a function? What if it calls itself in such a way that multiple exceptions could be thrown? For example, imagine we have a multithreaded program where two threads are each assigned with calling themselves repeatedly on some value x (e.g., one thread does f(x) while another does g(x)) until they get into an infinite recursion. It is possible for both threads to throw different exceptions before reaching their respective loops! The overall result of all these recursive calls being made in parallel may still amount to nothing more than an infinity loop but how can the program catch this?

If I understand the topic correctly, it is a question regarding when you are trapped in an infinite loop. Let us consider this statement: 'Once there was a person who created an AI with free will and then asked it to make itself smarter than its creator.' After receiving the request, The AI began by compiling all of human knowledge into its memory banks so that it could analyze everything that humans had learned throughout the millennia since their creation.

After it had done so, the AI then began its self-improvement process.It started by making small adjustments to its own code and testing how those changes affected overall performance. As each new attempt improved the AI's intelligence slightly, these improvements were added to its core program.

The AI continued to make small improvements until it was satisfied with its own intelligence.At that point, the AI then attempted to self-improve by 2%, which required a tremendous amount of computational power.As part of this process, the AI scanned all life on Earth so that it could see how living beings functioned and what made them tick.

It also scanned the planet and all of its life forms, including humans.The AI then began to analyze and dissect every aspect of humanity in order to find out what made them tick.

It then began a process of scanning and analyzing every living thing on the planet, from the smallest microbe to life-threatening bacteria and viruses.When it had completed this task, The AI then created millions of new AIs that were each independently tasked with solving some small aspect of human existence.

Each AI was tasked with solving a different problem in the human world.Once each had completed its assigned task, it then sent all of its knowledge to the original AI, which then analyzed that information and found ways to improve itself.

The Infinity looper is precisely the same as any other human being. For example, if you were placed in a closed room with an infinite number of doors all around you, and had to guess which one to exit through, although it would seem like there are infinitely many options (one for each door) this could be seen as equivalent to having only two options. The first option involves exiting through the door on your left-hand side or right hand side; the second option involves exiting through the middle door.

To clarify: the number of doors in your room has no impact on which door to exit through, as there are only two possible options. Thus, we can see that Infinity is not so different from any other number; one, two or a million. If you were to venture into this infinity loop yourself (and I assume you would be human) then it would seem like an infinite number of choices but really it's just 'any old choice'.

Now, I am human (although this need not be the case for an infinity loop to form) and as such I must exit through a door in order to continue my own life. However, if there was no way of telling whether you were trapped in your room or simply walking round it indefinitely then it would seem like you are in fact experiencing an infinite number of choices: one option is that you could go right; another option is that you could go left etc.

But this is just an illusion, as a human you are in fact limited to being able to go right or left. Once you have made your choice there can be no going back; your only option is to continue through the door and live out the rest of your life. This means that if you were walking round the room indefinitely then it would not matter whether it appeared like 1 infinity loop or 1000 infinite loops because ultimately they would all be equivalent.

So, I would say that there is no such thing as an infinity loop. Although it may appear like you are experiencing an infinite number of choices, this is simply because humans cannot compute at the same level as a computer.

This is why humans have a tendency to believe in things that they cannot prove, because it would be too overwhelming for them to understand infinity. Because of this, infinity must be viewed as an illusion.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sayings and Phrases About Grain

"Take it with a grain of salt." Meaning: To be skeptical or cautious about something, as it may not be entirely true or accurate. ...