Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

qntm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 44 posts

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#11

Post by FlorinAndrei »

btilly wrote: post #10

Someone 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 statist…

Complexity is easy. Just wait long enough.

It's consciousness that's harder to contemplate.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#14

Post by ck2 »

In 100 years we will have gobs of massively parallel computing power in the size of today's cellphones.

Even badly written code will be able to execute at speeds we can't fathom today. Every dot in an image will be able to be analyzed in milliseconds, matched to terabytes of stored patterns. Every sound wave in a voice analyzed by the same massive amount of power and patterns.

We may not have "real" AI in 100 years like in the movies but it will be a spooky close simulation.

I just don't know what will happen with power storage, we'd need a huge leap, the simple evolutions in battery chemistry so far are just not enough.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#15

Post by jey »

btilly wrote: post #10

Someone 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 statist…

> Once you hook together the right selection of abilities, I expect something that looks suspiciously like original thought to emerge.

It's very unlikely to simply "emerge". Sure it's theoretically possible, but that's very optimistic. It's more likely that if we develop AGI it will be due to gaining a thorough understanding of what it means to be "intelligent". (Yes, I know the word "intelligent" is vague, but I think you and I can at least agree that we "know it when we see it", and more technical definitions do exist.)

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#17

Post by extension »

boredguy8 wrote: post #8

Searle'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-intensiv…

Since human motivations and preferences are caused by evolutionary forces, I don't see how an AI would acquire such things, aside from what we build into it. And if we wanted to build motivation into it, it shouldn't be difficult, once we have an artificial mind capable of understanding the necessary concepts.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#18

Post by tbrownaw »

baddox wrote: post #3

Everything 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…

Deeper than that, everything hinges on defining intelligence as what is solvable/not solvable in theory given infinite resources (time etc). So any process that can blindly enumerate all solutions to a problem (no matter how often some wrong solutions might be repeated) is just as "intelligent" as if it could solve the problem in constant or log* or whatever time. This has the interesting result of us being by definition intelligently designed, since the random mutation / natural selection process is maximally intelligent (can result in solutions (possibly through an unbounded number of intermediates such as humans) to any problem that has a solution).

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#20

Post by lionheart »

Here's why I disagree: smart human beings evolved from not-very-smart primates.

That proves there is a natural process by which greater intelligence can be created.

Therefore there is no reason that an even greater intelligence cannot be created with help from man. And for singularity's sake super-human intelligence doesn't even have to be an AI. Genetically-engineered super-intelligent primates would do the trick as well. The idea is that once you've created something smarter than yourself, not matter how you did it, it will then be able to figure out how to make something even smarter. And so on. That's the singularity.

Post reply on HN