Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized • Hacker News Board

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#51

Post by monktastic1 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:36 PM UTC

lurquer wrote: post #39

vidarh wrote: post #21

Any article making such a claim need to start with explaining what evidence they have that human brains are not computing devices that can be replicated or simulated. Because absent evidence that there is something fundamental preventing us from one day copying the structure of a human brain and ending up with a working device, whatever claims they make are hand-waving.

>Any article making such a claim need to start with explaining what evidence they have that human brains are not computing devices that can be replicated or simulated. If X and Y appear dissimilar, the burden of proof is on he who would argue they are similar. If one contends a brain and a computer and the functions of each appear similar, then one is being disingenuous.

If, as your parent says, we can "one day [copy] the structure of a human brain", then X and Y do not appear dissimilar.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#52

Post by michaelmrose » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

pwm wrote: post #25

credit_guy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

My audiophile friends would vehemently agree with this statement :)

Call us when they can back up this assertion in double blinded tests.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#53

Post by karmakaze » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

cowboysauce wrote: post #15

jchrisa wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> Because computers operate on the rational numbers instead of the real numbers, Computers are just devices that perform computations. It's perfectly possible to construct computers that operate on values that are continuous and not discrete. In fact, such computers have been constructed before. They are know as analog computers and were used for things like numerically solving differential equations.

This is not even true. We have symbolic processing that can manipulate and formulate with non-rational expressions. This article is so worthless.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#54

Post by mchusma » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

sega_sai wrote: post #2

I 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…

Thanks for posting, I also disagree with it. I think using this authors high level stance is that only the human physical experience can lead to general intelligence. By this logic a blind person or quadrapeligic might not be generally intelligent.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#55

Post by ggggtez » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:40 PM UTC

sgillen wrote: post #30

ethanwillis wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been a minute since I picked up my information theory book. However if I remember correctly continuous signals (that is functions of the reals) can be represented without loss with a finite (but sufficient number of) discrete samples.

As long as all those reals are computable ;) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_number

It's fully possible for a computer to do symbolic math without reducing the symbols to a decimal.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#56

Post by michaelmrose » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

csours wrote: post #36

Is there a strong argument against the fact that every approach to AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) eventually becomes ANI (Artificial Narrow Intelligence)? In other words, as soon as a facet of AI (NLP etc) gets a specific name and context, it is no longer considered part of AGI.

Perhaps the brain is just a sufficiently capable arrangement of mental organs that would individually be classed as ANI

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#57

Post by credit_guy » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

jchrisa wrote: post #20

credit_guy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I'm on record saying heterodox things about the Nyquist theorem and SACD 1-bit DAC, so you are on topic. :)

In that case, since we are here and it's Friday and everyone needs to take it easy from time to time, here's my proof that we don't live in a simulation: according to [1], ray tracing is computationally undecidable. For example, say you are in a museum at night, and a light bulb turns on in a room on the third floor, is it still dark in some room on the first floor? This problem is undecidable using the axioms of geometric optics.

Of course, geometric optics is like real numbers, and the actual world is discrete: light is a finite collection of photons. So, you can do the simulation by simply emitting a number of photons from each light source and tracing them all the way until they are all absorbed. We can still live in a simulation, but one without algorithmic shortcuts, a simulation where you simulate every single photon.

Now, I'm sure you can come up with your own version of proof that we can't live in a simulation using Nyquist's theorem. If you do, and your Friday is not too busy, please share.

[1] https://users.cs.duke.edu/~reif/paper/tygar/raytracing.pdf

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#58

Post by vidarh » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #49

vidarh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always mystifies me to what extent people insist on trying to hold on to this fantasy of free will, while remaining unable to define free will in a way that does not devolve to "magic" or some attempt to obscure a deterministic description behind smoke and mirrors. At least some of the latter (e.g. a portion of compatibilists etc.) will if pressed admit that their "free will" is an effect or illusion of mind layer…

It always mystifies me that philosophical debates can even get that far when it's impossible to prove that a mind can know a truth because it begs the question. It's hard to even follow that previous sentence with my own view because it presupposes its own conclusion: Some things you just have to take on faith. For me, the definition of free will is action outside of the constraint of fate. And I'm not sure if it's a…

There is no requirement to "know a truth" to address the issue of free will.

The starting point would be: Come up with a definition that does not devolve into infinite regression ("god did it", which just moves the question "up one plane" and so does not provide a solution) or smoke and mirrors (and illusion over determinism).

If someone were to be able to form a cohesive definition that does not fall down one of those two holes, it'd be possible to at least try to determine whether or not the definition has holes.

But without even such an attempt at a definition, any argument in favour of free will falls on its face from the start.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#59

Post by ggggtez » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

blacksqr wrote: post #42

enitihas wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the main point, replicated economically. Given unlimited budget, I think simulating the human brain might be possible if one could use a powerful enough computer for evey neuron.

The author explicitly stated that the main point is that the goal is fundamentally unachievable, regardless of economics or budgets.

The authors main point is bunk if his only defense of that point is that humans are smart.

The "learning" problem is solved. We've developed numerous algorithms to take a neural network and have it learn a task. We've solved specific problems, including image recognition, and text synthesis. Companies have figured out how to make sensory equipment including cameras, microphones, touch sensors...

Just because no one has managed to put together all the pieces doesn't mean it will never happen. People for thousands of years did not think it was possible to build a flying machine, until someone did.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#60

Post by knodi123 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #24

This feels a lot like Douglas Hofstadter's elaborate explanation in Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid of how computers will never beat the best human chess players.

And here's DH just a couple years ago,

> If you ask me in principle if it’s possible for a computing hardware to do something like thinking, I would say absolutely it’s possible. Computing hardware can do anything that a brain could do, but I don’t think at this point we’re doing what brains do. We’re simulating the surface level of it, and many people are falling for the illusion. Sometimes the performance of these machines are spectacular.