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

91–100 of 403 posts

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#91

Post by blacksqr »

ggggtez wrote: post #59
blacksqr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

I was not suggesting that I agree with the linked article's argument (I don't). Just that the poster above me misstated the article's main point.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#92

Post by bena »

quibbler wrote: post #13
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.

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.

Are we? How do you know this?

Define "general intelligence". Then prove we have it. Then demonstrate that this definition that includes us doesn't include something commonly accepted to not have the same qualities.

Also, if we don't have "general intelligence", what does that mean?

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#93

Post by ebg13 »

hansvm wrote: post #82
ebg13 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's well and good, but "prediction" is an attribute of a representative model, not of reality. Reality doesn't represent or predict itself; it just occurs. The problem of comparing against "hidden variable theories" in this context is that the variables wouldn't be hidden to reality; they'd only be hidden to us. So can we predict better than QM? Maybe not. Does QM describe the truth behind experience? Probably not, and it isn't meant to.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#94

Post by jqpabc123 »

dwaltrip wrote: post #86
jqpabc123 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you suggesting life is supernaturally sustained?

No. I am simply suggesting that creating life (and intelligence) from inert materals may involve more than "just chemistry". In the same way that lead can not be turned into gold by "just chemistry".

I welcome knowledge and proof to the contrary but thus far, there is none.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#95

Post by michaelmrose »

lurquer wrote: post #89
michaelmrose wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can you describe what you mean by thinking?

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#96

Post by michaelmrose »

lurquer wrote: post #87
michaelmrose wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, i…

Maybe you are stuck on the notion of a computer as a silicon chip. Biological entities are just a special case of machine ergo it is already proved that a machine can attain general AI.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#97

Post by michaelmrose »

lurquer wrote: post #85
michaelmrose wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I think computation as a model of cognition is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that will bear fruit and at least it IS a hypothesis instead of hand waving.

It is worse to imagine that there is a physical process that exists wholly in the physical world that happens in the world within reasonable parameters cannot possibly be engineered to happen in a controlled fashion.

This is a proof that would require a major shift in physics and math and yet we are expected to accept it purely based on intuition without even a compelling theory of how it does work.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#98

Post by balfirevic »

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 :)

Yes, the analogy extends more than initially apparent :)

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#99

Post by ogogmad »

jchrisa wrote: post #5
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…

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...

Actually, digital computers can compute over the real numbers. They can compute quite a lot over the real numbers, even. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_analysis#Basic_resu...

This even has some concrete applications. See this: https://icfp19.sigplan.org/details/icfp-2019-papers/15/Sound...

Finally, saying that digital computers can't compute functions of the form Real -> Real is like saying that a computer can't compute functions of the form (Int -> Int) -> (Int -> Int). In other words, it's like saying that higher order functions are impossible.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#100

Post by quibbler »

bena wrote: post #92
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. Are we? How do you know this? Define "general intelligence". Then prove we have it. Then demonstrate that this definition that includes us doesn't include something commonly accepted to not have the same qualities. Also, if we don't have "general intelligence", what does that mean?

I don't feel answering your questions would help much in making progress towards creating intelligent machines.

Being able to create machines with human level intelligence would be amazing. I took AGI as a shortcut for meaning that. If it doesn't, ok, whatever - I think human level intelligence should be the next goal, no matter how you call it.

Many people contest that human level intelligence is impossible for machines to achieve. Imo existence of humans demonstrates it is possible.

Post reply on HN