Deep image prior 'learns' on just one image

> You don't touch the machine directly, you get the numbers the simulation spits out.

So you're restricting the use of this machine to a situation designed to fool human beings?

The criterion for general intelligence is actual intelligence, not putting it in ideal conditions and seeing if people are fooled.

> Why would the simulation fail this test?

It seems like you think this machine is going to simulate the entire universe, evolve its model of the universe and therefore perfectly predict its next state -- and on the basis of this prediction provide an answer.

Sure, perhaps I will concede: if you are able to simulate the universe in infinite detail you might be able to perfectly predict its next state.

This isnt any ambition of any one however. And has nothing to do with AI. If the precondition of AI is "a perfect simulation of everything", then that's close enough -- for me -- to call it impossible.

Even so, in this sense however, we do not " simulate gold " . What it means to "simulate gold" is to take some small number of aspects, model them with equations, and run those equations.

A video game that allowed you to perform mass-spectrometry on any possible compound, along with everything else you could possibly do to everything -- would I think, be a video game which requires a whole other universe to exist.

And so, it seems your argument is that "when scientists can model the universe in infinite detail so as to perfectly predict its next state, we will have AI!" (and, as far as the quantum state of brains go, it's close enough to inifinity to model all of that)..

OK, sure. I don't know how scientists are going to build a universe simulator without a "theory of everything" and how, even with such a theory, a machine can predict the next-state of a large system in sub-infinite times. Processing merely some particle collisions in the LHC takes months.

I cannot see how a machine is going to actually track the evolving entangled state of an audience of human beings.

"Infinitely precise information about the universe" I think actually requires you to actually be the universe. That's maybe a speculation however, but I would be surprised if the universe could be described in less volume than it occupies. And if an infinity of precision (ie., perfect parity in every simulated result) is actually possible without the target system.

A machine can only simulate what is known. The actual behaviour of the universe is much larger than what is known. As soon as we discover something new, then we have a test to prove the machine is a machine.

> The criterion for general intelligence is actual intelligence, not putting it in ideal conditions and seeing if people are fooled.

Having to do it across a wire is "ideal conditions"?

The initial comment was about "artificial general intelligence". Every single one of those problems can be done across a wire.

Every word that has ever been spoken, every gesture that has ever been made, you can do across a wire.

It's good enough to solve any practical problem in the world. It just won't be "real".

> It seems like you think this machine is going to simulate the entire universe, evolve its model of the universe and therefore perfectly predict its next state -- and on the basis of this prediction provide an answer.

No, it's going to simulate a tiny cubicle with a person inside.

I guess you could call it a simulated universe, but the universe is only two cubic meters.

> I cannot see how a machine is going to actually track the evolving entangled state of an audience of human beings.

Put cameras in the seat in the theater. One copy of the feed goes to a real person, the other goes to the machine. Both can track the evolving state of the audience fine. Neither one should be expected to perfectly simulate the rest of the audience.

> I would be surprised if the universe could be described in less volume than it occupies.

Don't worry, I don't expect the machine to be smaller than two cubic meters!

> A machine can only simulate what is known. The actual behaviour of the universe is much larger than what is known. As soon as we discover something new, then we have a test to prove the machine is a machine.

That's fair. So version 1.0 will have slightly-wrong physics. Do you think that will necessarily make the simulation go awry? Do you think we'll never know enough about physics to simulate a small box with a person in it?

the problem with your suggestion is that it is merely affirming the consequent: brains are conscious and robots are not brains therefore robots are not conscious. actually the real question is why are brains conscious? if we could answer that, then we could gather conscious things together (human brains, dog brains, slime mold, not trees, not grass) -- you see. its not sufficient to just say "brain" or "organic matter". the diversity of life (ex bird brain vs squid brain while both creatures demonstrate self awareness) suggests a compelling hypothesis: multiple realizability. if multiple realizability is true then perhaps the explanation is that it is not the substrate that is relevant but the arrangement, the programming, whatever... point being, im guessing you have a bio background and so you're a skeptic about virtual minds and in the more strict sense that is a very valid point -- most in the field of AI do not have any bio background at all and as you say, the only thing known for certain to be conscious being your own mind, well, you'd think understanding the bio would yield some insights. well actually it has, ex hinton's work is very much inspired by actual biology (neurology) /end rant