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

81–90 of 403 posts

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#81

Post by michaelmrose »

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.

Appearance is vague to the point of being an argument without merit. If someone can SHOW something to be dissimilar in kind not degree then it would fall upon the recipient of that argument to refute it. It is not enough to point and not explicate. One could point at our pre civilized ancestors and point out hunter gatherers can't fly to the moon or build a computer and would never do so. One could go further back yet to the prior species that would someday become humans and point out that their present limitations and claim that one could never produce the other. Both assertions would be obviously wrong only because of the advantage of hindsight.

I do not accept that there is a difference between computation and thought without some meaningful definition of thought.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#82

Post by hansvm »

ebg13 wrote: post #62
ggggtez wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The offender I hear most often now a days is trying to use Quantum Mechanics to bring free-will back into play. The idea being that if any part of nature is unpredictable, then that could be a mechanism for where free-will might come from. Except that would be like saying your phone is conscious just because it gets bombarded by cosmic waves that sometimes cause bitflips. Just because the machine isn't 100% predictab…

> The idea being that if any part of nature is unpredictable, then that could be a mechanism for where free-will might come from. Trying to use QM to introduce free will is just another manifestation of the same "mistaking the model for the reality" problem. We have no reason to believe that quantum probability is the end of the road just because we can't see what causes the probabilistic results. For all anyone know…

Perhaps. There's been some interesting work in showing that any hidden variable theories can't give any better predictions than QM probabilities. It remains to be seen whether their hypotheses are valid, but the inference seems sound.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#83

Post by michaelmrose »

lurquer wrote: post #80
yellowstuff wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you can't explain what the difference is between computation and thought how can you hope to argue that one can't be used to achieve the other.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#84

Post by michaelmrose »

lurquer wrote: post #79
vidarh wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A duck is an entire organism with a known genetic code, suspected lineage in the tree of life and defined characteristics.

A brain is an organ within another known organism in a differing position in the tree of life with different characteristics.

A computer is a device which takes in input via some means and uses input to transform elements that together represent its internal state based on input and prior internal state resulting in output that is the result of both internal state and input arranged in a fashion such that an actor with sufficient knowledge of functioning can manipulate input in order to achieve desired output.

A programmer is such an actor.

In such a context it appears that a brain is merely programmer and computer and AI is merely the achievement of a sufficiently complex and capable system as to represent the same thing in silicon or whatever medium you prefer.

Arguing that such is impossible seems to be merely a failure of imagination.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#85

Post by lurquer »

michaelmrose wrote: post #81
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.

Appearance is vague to the point of being an argument without merit. If someone can SHOW something to be dissimilar in kind not degree then it would fall upon the recipient of that argument to refute it. It is not enough to point and not explicate. One could point at our pre civilized ancestors and point out hunter gatherers can't fly to the moon or build a computer and would never do so. One could go further back ye…

> do not accept that there is a difference between computation and thought without some meaningful definition of thought.

If I know everything about the nature of X, yet I know very little about the nature of Y, it would be illogical to say "I will assume Y is like X until proven otherwise."

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#86

Post by dwaltrip »

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.

Don’t beat around the bush. Are you implying life is supernaturally sustained? That would be quite the claim.

If not, then the history of science strongly suggests we can eventually learn the mechanisms of life and intelligence and then find a way to imperfectly yet sufficiently reimplement them.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#87

Post by lurquer »

michaelmrose wrote: post #83
lurquer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

If you can't explain what the difference is between computation and thought how can you hope to argue that one can't be used to achieve the other.

I'm not arguing that it can't. I was merely pointing out the proper 'burden of proof.' The article was criticized for failing to demonstrate that something can't be done... that's not fair. The burden would be on the proponent of the proposition that a machine can attain general AI. That's all.

Perhaps there could be general AI... I'm not saying it can't be done. I would point out, though, that IF it is to be done, it certainly won't be by copying a brain. Nobody even knows the hell the brain works...

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#88

Post by jqpabc123 »

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.

There is quite a bit of evidence that your brain is analog, not digital. There is lots of evidence that it is both chemical and electrical in nature And while it is capable of logic, it does not rely strictly on any specific form of logic.

In other words, the only working models we have for "intelligence" are nothing like the silicon binary switches we are attempting to use to replicate it.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#89

Post by lurquer »

michaelmrose wrote: post #84
lurquer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'>I contend the brain by definition is a computer, I contend the brain is by definition a duck. It's easy to redefine words.

A duck is an entire organism with a known genetic code, suspected lineage in the tree of life and defined characteristics. A brain is an organ within another known organism in a differing position in the tree of life with different characteristics. A computer is a device which takes in input via some means and uses input to transform elements that together represent its internal state based on input and prior interna…

Everything is impossible until proven otherwise.

You imagine a 'thinking' machine all you want. Doesn't change to reality of the situation that no digital device comes close to thinking.

Some find this frustrating. So, they reduce the idea of a brain to a digital computer.

Ita a confusion of the Model with that being Modelled. A photo of you, is a representation -- or model -- of you. But, it would be silly to become so enamourwd with the photo that you begin to think YOU are a representation of the photograph.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#90

Post by bena »

vidarh wrote: post #69
bena wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just flipping the burden of proof around. What is your proof that it can be done? "But planes" is not proof. I'm of the opinion that we don't even know what questions we are trying to answer. What is intelligence? What is consciousness? Can you explain them in concrete terms that are acceptable to everyone and don't have any notable exceptions? That's going to be the first step to being anywhere close to real…

The strong indication that it can be done is that brains exists and grow guided by machinery that is computationally limited by the fact it takes up exceedingly little space, and we by extension can put an upper bound on the computational capacity of that machinery. That there is a tough engineering job involved in reproducing such machinery so we can grown brain matter at will, and that we'd prefer our computers to…

"It exists, therefore we can make it." I don't find that line of thought compelling.

Although you can argue that we already do it because we, as a species, reproduce.

It could be quite possible that our level of intelligence is not reproducible by the means we have chosen. It could be that there is something inherent in our entire composition that allows for our particular expression of intelligence and consciousness.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I am saying that first, we don't even know what we're looking for. And when pressed as to what that is, the answer comes down to basically, "You know..." while gesturing broadly.

Post reply on HN