Why there will never be human-equivalent AI
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI
#2Useless nonsense.
Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI
#3Everything hinges on his belief: "I believe that it is impossible for human beings to create a human-equivalent artificial intelligence."
I agree that it's difficult to give formal specifications for a "human-equivalent artificial intelligence," but assuming the human brain is an entirely physical object, why shouldn't we be able to at least theoretically create or simulate a computer system with as much complexity and the same functionality?
Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI
#4Uninformed dribblings at best.
Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI
#51. Design and build AI brain
2. New AI brain designs and builds more complex AI brain
3. Repeat step 2
Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI
#6Everything hinges on his belief: "I believe that it is impossible for human beings to create a human-equivalent artificial intelligence." I agree that it's difficult to give formal specifications for a "human-equivalent artificial intelligence," but assuming the human brain is an entirely physical object, why shouldn't we be able to at least theoretically create or simulate a computer system with as much complexity a…
I agree with you. Also, I don't believe humans aren't limited by the same issues that machines have. Halting problem comes to mind, nothing shows that humans aren't bound by it too. I believe (another belief ;p ) that theoretically machines can be as intelligent as human considering that were both bound by the same limits. But I'm no AI expert as my post will probably prove. IANAAIE
Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI
#7Never say never.
'Real AI' may require new hardware like quantum computers, and may take a very long time, but even 400 years ago, did anyone expect us to be sending small robotic vehicles around and out of the solar system?
I do believe that real AI will happen, but it may seem very alien to us.
Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI
#8Searle's 'experiment' is silly. Searle is trying to make readers empathize with the 'person in the box'. Let's concede, for the moment, that the person in the box doesn't understand Chinese in any meaningful way.
That says nothing about whether or not the SYSTEM on a WHOLE understands Chinese. Given the constraints of Searle's example (that every input produces a 'correct' output, but does so via this labour-intensive process), it seems there IS intelligence going on there at the SYSTEM level.
Ultimately, the point of that story is saying 'the cpu isn't smart'. Fine, that's not the argument behind AI/PI. And the whole 'there's nothing going on that isn't in the person already' also misses the point: what if, instead of a slow human translating, we had a fast human doing the lookups at the magnitude of a trillion lookup operations per second? They'd be able to do substantially more 'translating' work than the author of the software. So now, say that we program 'learning' instead of 'translation'. Sweet, now the computer can't learn any BETTER than the human, but it can learn FASTER, and there may be some substantial benefit to that.
His own argument is self-refuting: "in fact it was doing exactly what I had told it to do and nothing which I couldn't have done myself longhand given the time." Right. But you're limited by death, and a computer isn't limited in the same way. So say AI never makes it to 'smarter than human given enough time'. Fine. If it does in 30 seconds what it would take me 17,000 years to complete, I'm pretty happy.
The FAR more interesting question (to me) and probably one that can't be solved until we 'get there' is this: will computer intelligence be subject to the same foibles and hangups as a human? So, for instance, could "Google AI" respond to my search request by saying, "Wow, what a boring question, stop bothering me."
Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI
#9I love how he completely undermines his own point in the last line of the post:
Lesser intelligences cannot create greater
intelligences... dumb luck notwithstanding.
In other words, since "dumb luck" can optimize a fitness function that results in intelligence, why can't that same (or some similar) fitness function be optimized a little less dumbly, like using human intelligence to navigate the through the solution space?
Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI
#10Someone clearly didn't read Godel, Escher, Bach.
I've long pointed out that human brains are far more complex than computers. However given Moore's law it seems likely that somewhere in the 2015-2030 range (depending on how one defines the complexity of a neuron), computers will be a match for human brains in complexity. At some point after that happens I expect human level AI to appear.
The growing power of statistical techniques for previously impossible tasks like translation and answering Jeopardy questions (see the computer IBM is putting together) suggests that once the requisite CPU power is available, it won't take long for computers to match humans on a wide variety of cognitive tasks. Once you hook together the right selection of abilities, I expect something that looks suspiciously like original thought to emerge.