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

Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 403 posts

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#71

Post by jqpabc123 »

doliveira wrote: post #26
jqpabc123 wrote: post #3

It 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.

What is "religious" is this inclination to treat human intelligence as this magical thing that works outside the laws of nature, as if our neurons and our brain were something other than just chemistry doing very complex things. That would be quite an extraordinary claim that requires equally extraordinary evidence.

Life in general and your brain in particular may very well be more than "just chemistry". We really don't know.

What we do know at this point is that no amount of "just chemistry" has ever managed to create even the most rudimentary form of "life" from inert chemicals.

And the only working models we have for "intelligence" at this point are inextricably bound to life.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#72

Post by eli_gottlieb »

loosetypes wrote: post #10
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Boolean circuits are memoryless, and a strictly weaker class of computation than Turing machines.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#73

Post by jqpabc123 »

sobellian wrote: post #34
jqpabc123 wrote: post #3

It 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.

Is your problem digital logic? Analog computers predate digital computers. I doubt that's the sticking point but if it is, it's not an impossible hurdle.

Someone won an award for mathematically proving that a simple general purpose computer could be built from a handful of color coded wooden switches powered by a hand crank and programmed by punched tape. This simple analog device could run any possible binary logic program that could ever be created --- albeit much slower than a modern digital computer.

In other words, this rudimentary analog logic playback device is every bit as "smart" as any other binary logic computer will ever be --- which is to say, not at all.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#74

Post by Balgair »

vidarh wrote: post #68
Balgair wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the brain grows and develops in humans is not very well understood. We mostly use animal models to understand the nervous system, not humans. As an example of why this is problematic: mouse embryos pretty much turn inside out at day 3, and are the only known mammal to do this. All others, including humans, don't. Why and how are unknown, as are the effects on long term development. Basically, mice are better subj…

It's not very well understood, but the process is known to exist and work. To assume it can't even in principle be replicated would be an extraordinary claim. Yet the article suggests artificial intelligence can not exist even in principle.

I mean, from a biochem perspective, it's flabbergasting that intelligence exists at all. The brain is so noisy.

To me, it's not far fetched to say that you can't make it happen again. Though I think it's technically possible.

We're missing something big with intelligence. We know neurons and synapses a little bit. We know a few dozen neurons a little, though it's complexity is crazy big.

But that gap between a normal brain down to a few dozen neurons is just boggling right now. There are just so many questions that need to be studied ethically.

It may not be possible to answer them all in a reasonable time window.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#75

Post by doliveira »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #71
doliveira wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "religious" is this inclination to treat human intelligence as this magical thing that works outside the laws of nature, as if our neurons and our brain were something other than just chemistry doing very complex things. That would be quite an extraordinary claim that requires equally extraordinary evidence.

Life in general and your brain in particular may very well be more than "just chemistry". We really don't know. What we do know at this point is that no amount of "just chemistry" has ever managed to create even the most rudimentary form of "life" from inert chemicals. And the only working models we have for "intelligence" at this point are inextricably bound to life.

Yeah, demons may be pushing chemicals down your neurons or your soul is giving tiny electrical shocks to the axons. Anything is possible.

One would think that the synthesis of urea back in 1828 would at least weaken this argument, but hey...

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#76

Post by quibbler »

hutzlibu wrote: post #38
quibbler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know that machines with AGI are possible - humans are such machines. Maybe you could discuss whether classical computers could achieve AGI, but I think overall the quest is to build machines with AGI, not necessarily in the form of classical computers.

"We know that machines with AGI are possible - humans are such machines." I believe, it is disputed, whether humans are just machines. But it is mostly a matter of definition, I believe.

There are of course people who believe something supernatural (a soul) is involved.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#77

Post by _nalply »

I think human intelligence can't be recreated but this is not neccessary. It's good enough if artificial intelligence is general enough to solve problems autonomously. I imagine AI as a different sentient species. A species which doesn't have instincts about food, excretion, reproduction and avoiding being eaten by predators. AI will be always different from humans because it is not useful to recreate all human instincts.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#78

Post by lurquer »

monktastic1 wrote: post #51
lurquer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That's a tautology.

It reduces to the following: Given X, if I could create a Y such that Y=X, then X would equal Y!

That adds nothing.

It isn't a given that it is even possible to 'copy' a brain. Why would one think it is? Does not quantum mechanics preclude the possibility of copying something perfectly at the atomic scale? Indeed, even if you could perfectly copy the 'material' aspect, you will still need to copy the configuration of electrical charges that existed at the moment of copying. This too is, from what I gather from QM, inherently impossible.

Does this preclude general AI? No. But it does demonstrate the absurdity of arguments that begin, "if I could copy the brain atom by atom, then..." as such a thing is impossible.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#79

Post by lurquer »

vidarh wrote: post #50
lurquer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I contend the brain by definition is a computer, and so that any claim that we can not produce an artificial one implies that we'll forever be unable to replicate a process that is repeated over and over by nature through simple biochemical processes.

'>I contend the brain by definition is a computer,

I contend the brain is by definition a duck.

It's easy to redefine words.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#80

Post by lurquer »

yellowstuff wrote: post #48
lurquer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Surely the burden of proof is on someone claiming something is impossible? I skimmed the article but I didn't see any support for his argument beyond pointing to the limitations of existing technology, and asserting that these limits were insurmountable.

>Surely the burden of proof is on someone claiming something is impossible?

You can't prove a negative in this sense. In general, we know things are possible... but we never know if things are impossible.

And, don't call me surely.

Post reply on HN