"There is still no mechanism in GenAI that enforces deductive constraints (and compositionality), ie., situations where when one output (, input) is obtained the search space for future outputs is necessarily constrained (and where such constraints compose). Yet all the sales pitches about the future of AI require not merely encoding reliable logical relationships of this kind, but causal and intentional ones: ones where hypothetical necessary relationships can be imposed and then suspended; ones where such hypotheticals are given a ordering based on preference/desires; ones where the actions available to the machine, in conjunction with the state of its environment, lead to such hypothetical evaluations."
Everything you said in this paragraph is not just wrong, but it's practically criminal that you would go on the internet and spread such lied and FUD so confidently.
If you think my confidence is misplaced, feel free to offer a counterpoint. I feel as you do about people who would say the opposite of what I am saying, though, I'd think them naive, gullible, credulous over criminal.
Stochastic AI, by definition, does not impose discrete necessary constraints on inference. It does not, under very weak assumptions, provide counterfactual simulation of alternatives. And does not provide a mechanism of self-motivation under environmental coordination.
Why? Since [Necessarily]A|B is not reducible to P(A|B, Model) -- but requires P(A|B) = 0 \forall M. Since P(A|B) and P(B|A) are symmetric in cases where A -causes-> B are not. Since Action = max P(A->B|Goal,Environment) is not the distribution P(A, B, Goal, Environment) or any conditioning of it. Since Environment is not Environment(t), and there is no formulation of Goal(t, t`), Environment(t, t`), (A->B)(t, t`) I am aware of which maintains relevant constraints dynamically without prior specification (one aspect of the Framing Problem).
Now if you have a technology in mind which is more than P(A|B), I'd be interested in hearing it. But if you just want to insist that your P(A|B) model can do all of the above, then, I'd be inclined to believe you are if not criminal, then considerably credulous.
Everything you said in this paragraph is not just wrong, but it's practically criminal that you would go on the internet and spread such lied and FUD so confidently.