I don't have any ability whatosever to make statements about what it can or cannot do
But you can: if you can prove that a solution does not exist, you can be confident that even an infinitely resourced strong AI can't find one. As a trivial example, it couldn't deduce the number of limbs you have given only the number of eyes, because we know there exist life forms with the same number of eyes but different numbers of limbs, so there simply isn't one correct answer.
Similarly, the question of whether it could find a way into your brain through your visual cortex given only two sentences in ASCII written by you is not a question about the AI, it's a question about you: do you think there could possibly exist a single visual hack which was effective against all possible beings that might have written exactly those sentences? It seems vanishingly unlikely to me that that's the case.
This is conceptually the same sort of theological quagmire that we got out of by realising that completely meaningless sequences of words do not become meaningful just because someone stuck "God can" on the front; physical omnipotence is still limited by having to be logically consistent, and similarly here computational omnipotence is still limited by the AI having to have enough information to render its conclusion unique before it can draw it.
no subject
But you can: if you can prove that a solution does not exist, you can be confident that even an infinitely resourced strong AI can't find one. As a trivial example, it couldn't deduce the number of limbs you have given only the number of eyes, because we know there exist life forms with the same number of eyes but different numbers of limbs, so there simply isn't one correct answer.
Similarly, the question of whether it could find a way into your brain through your visual cortex given only two sentences in ASCII written by you is not a question about the AI, it's a question about you: do you think there could possibly exist a single visual hack which was effective against all possible beings that might have written exactly those sentences? It seems vanishingly unlikely to me that that's the case.
This is conceptually the same sort of theological quagmire that we got out of by realising that completely meaningless sequences of words do not become meaningful just because someone stuck "God can" on the front; physical omnipotence is still limited by having to be logically consistent, and similarly here computational omnipotence is still limited by the AI having to have enough information to render its conclusion unique before it can draw it.