Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
1–10 of 403 posts
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#2I posted the article because it is thought provoking, although I disagree with it. The reason is for example statements like this "The real problem is that computers are not in the world, because they are not embodied."
"And I shall argue that they cannot pass the full Turing test because they are not in the world, and, therefore, they have no understanding."
First I think that whether something is embodied or not doesn't matter. Our senses in the end could be likely approximated by arrays of numbers fed to a computer, so I don't think lack of body is such an issue.
Regarding understanding by machines, that is clearly the issue for current AI, but at least based on what I know about modern machine translation, there is already something that works with concepts/abstract terms and their relations, which looks to me like a beginning for abstract reasoning...
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#3It is difficult to build/create something you don't understand.
A computer is just a playback machine for binary logic.
We know that "intelligence" can create binary logic.
We don't know if binary logic can create "intelligence".
Claims that it is possible are really more "religious" than scientific at this point.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#4It is difficult to build/create something you don't understand. A computer is just a playback machine for binary logic. We know that "intelligence" can create binary logic. We don't know if binary logic can create "intelligence". Claims that it is possible are really more "religious" than scientific at this point.
The real question is whether Universal Turing Machines, or some equivalently powerful formalism, can create "intelligence".
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#5I posted the article because it is thought provoking, although I disagree with it. The reason is for example statements like this "The real problem is that computers are not in the world, because they are not embodied." "And I shall argue that they cannot pass the full Turing test because they are not in the world, and, therefore, they have no understanding." First I think that whether something is embodied or not do…
My hunch agrees with the paper. Because computers operate on the rational numbers instead of the real numbers, they can never be embodied. They are always in a simulation...
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#6Much of the revenue generated from space engineers sales (over 10M copies sold on Steam) went towards an "AGI" pursuit.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#7I posted the article because it is thought provoking, although I disagree with it. The reason is for example statements like this "The real problem is that computers are not in the world, because they are not embodied." "And I shall argue that they cannot pass the full Turing test because they are not in the world, and, therefore, they have no understanding." First I think that whether something is embodied or not do…
My hunch agrees with the paper. Because computers operate on the rational numbers instead of the real numbers, they can never be embodied. They are always in a simulation...
Maybe I don’t understand your point, but our senses are also compressed to some extent. Your synapses fire or don’t fire, providing digitized input for some of your senses like hearing. At any point there is a discrete amount of hormones in your body. etc etc. That doesn’t seem categorically different from any man made sensor.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#8It is difficult to build/create something you don't understand. A computer is just a playback machine for binary logic. We know that "intelligence" can create binary logic. We don't know if binary logic can create "intelligence". Claims that it is possible are really more "religious" than scientific at this point.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In light of our limited understanding of how the brain works, claiming it is not possible to recreate its functions inside a computer programming is a much stronger claim than to assume that it’s possible and we just don’t know how. Unless we see a mathematical proof that it’s impossible, I think people who claim that it’s impossible are the same as people who claimed that only birds can fly and that it is impossible for machines to roam the skies.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#9I posted the article because it is thought provoking, although I disagree with it. The reason is for example statements like this "The real problem is that computers are not in the world, because they are not embodied." "And I shall argue that they cannot pass the full Turing test because they are not in the world, and, therefore, they have no understanding." First I think that whether something is embodied or not do…
My hunch agrees with the paper. Because computers operate on the rational numbers instead of the real numbers, they can never be embodied. They are always in a simulation...
This is like saying CD players will never be as good as vinyl record players because the first use digital signals (rational numbers) and the second analogue (real numbers).
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#10It is difficult to build/create something you don't understand. A computer is just a playback machine for binary logic. We know that "intelligence" can create binary logic. We don't know if binary logic can create "intelligence". Claims that it is possible are really more "religious" than scientific at this point.
The real question is whether Universal Turing Machines, or some equivalently powerful formalism, can create "intelligence".
How is that not the same question with fluffier terminology?