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

141–150 of 403 posts

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#141

Post by Strilanc »

> In the book [Dreyfus] argued that an important part of human knowledge is tacit. Therefore, it cannot be articulated and implemented in a computer program. [...] [...] [...] These skills cannot just be learned from textbooks. They are acquired by instruction from someone who knows the trade.

This is a classic example of the Mind Projection Fallacy [1], where a property of how you think is assumed to be a property of reality.

It's true, for humans, that it is simply not possible to be told how to ride a bike and then be good at riding a bike. No matter how carefully and completely you explain to a human what they will have to do, when you put them on a bike for the first time they will struggle.

The mistake is assuming that this "have-to-really-do-it" effect is a limitation intrinsic to bike-riding-knowledge instead of a limitation in human learning and communication mechanisms. The mistake is assuming this property will generalize to all bike riding systems.

In a computer system, what would be tacit knowledge for a human is no longer tacit. If you create a computer program that can successfully control one bike riding robot, that program can be copied to a freshly built bike riding robot of the same make. The new robot will then successfully ride a bike the first time it is placed on it, without any hint of the human "have-to-really-do-it" struggling phase.

It can be intuitively useful to imagine computers as having the ability to "super communicate" in a way that humans simply can't. That has its advantages, and its disadvantages. If you had super communication you could super-explain to a blind person what it was like to see and if they ever did gain their sight there would be no "Oh so that's what you meant" moment. On the other hand, a heroin addict could super-explain being addicted to heroin to you.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#142

Post by baddox »

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.

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

That claim has roughly the same epistemological status as Last Thursdayism ("the world was created last Thursday in a state where we have memories and see evidence of past events but those events aren't actually real.").

> 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.

How do we know that? Are you just talking about humans practicing chemistry?

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#143

Post by abecedarius »

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.

That's unfair. Hofstadter said he thought it wouldn't happen until AI programs were our equals in general; he emphasized he was guessing and that his colleagues would disagree; and the explanation was of his worldview that led to the guess.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#144

Post by dynamite-ready »

abetusk wrote: post #131

Here is, to me, the relevant line: "Hubert Dreyfus, who argued that computers, who have no body, no childhood and no cultural practice, could not acquire intelligence at all. One of Dreyfus’ main arguments was that human knowledge is partly tacit, and therefore cannot be articulated and incorporated in a computer program. " I have not read the rest of the article but in the introduction it's stated: "The article furt…

I'm not sure. If we think about it mechanically, and the output of the a computer system is a function of it's input, then perhaps we are woefully underestimating the role of the body as both a monitor and input system.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#145

Post by baddox »

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.

To claim otherwise is to claim that there is some barrier beyond which scientific inquiry is not allowed to cross or is incapable of crossing. The epistemological status of such a claim is roughly equivalent to explaining something about the Universe by saying "it's because God did it."

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#146

Post by c1ccccc1 »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #94
dwaltrip wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have lots of evidence of how the processes of life are chemically driven: Photosynthesis captures energy from sunlight, metabolism of sugars produces ATP which is then used in a variety of ways by the cell's proteins, the DNA->RNA->Protein pipeline builds proteins from the sequences of base pairs stored in a cell's DNA, and DNA copying enzymes pass that information from generation to generation. Since you probably already know about that stuff, I guess I must be misunderstanding what kind of proof you are looking for. What sort of discovery would count as "proof" to you?

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#147

Post by MaximumYComb »

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.

If I said I can fly by flapping my arms quickly I would assume the burden of proof would be on me to prove it as opposed to others proving that it's impossible

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#149

Post by empath75 »

mordymoop wrote: post #133

These people are still going to be publishing this garbage after AIs are the ones writing the articles.

In 2030, Nature will publish an article written by an AI claiming that AIs will never be able to publish an article in Nature.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#150

Post by MaximumYComb »

Balgair wrote: post #67
vidarh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article title makes an unqualified claim about realisation, and so it was what I responded to, but the article itself also makes the same strong claim: > A closer look reveals that although development of artificial intelligence for specific purposes (ANI) has been impressive, we have not come much closer to developing artificial general intelligence (AGI). The article further argues that this is in principle imp…

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…

Embryology is a fascinating field. How does a single cell develop into a functional animal? This process developed under evolutionary pressure.
Post reply on HN