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

201–210 of 403 posts

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#201

Post by mindcrime »

baddox wrote: post #134
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.

That's certainly not the case. We can and absolutely have proven things to be impossible.

We can and absolutely have proven things to be impossible.

What would you consider to be an example of that? And how does that square with the Problem of Induction which is the hole in our entire system of empirical knowledge generation?

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#202

Post by mindcrime »

RoutinePlayer wrote: post #148

Every pronouncement that AGI will NEVER be achieved is equivalent as saying that AGI does not exist in the universe. So, I guess this biological AGI entity writing this note does not exist.

Right. Because if a carbon based / biological machine like a human can be an AGI, what reason - in principle - is there to say that the same can't be done with a different (perhaps silicon centric) machine? To suggest otherwise feels, to me, like indulging in a form of mysticism which holds up human life as something being "beyond" science.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#203

Post by wwwwewwww »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #180
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 how you can say computers have no body and no childhood. I think someone who doesn't know computers very well just doesn't see it, but they actually have both.

I think I know computers well. But I have no idea what "body" and "childhood" computers have. Can you please explain?

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#204

Post by godelski »

mindcrime wrote: post #199
godelski wrote: post #129

Embodiment being a killer feature for AGI seems weird to me. Not only is "what is a body" vague, but it is entirely possible to build a body. So why would it prevent AGI? We do know that embodiment is a sufficient condition for general intelligence: if we assume humans have general intelligence then it is clearly a sufficient condition. But the question of necessary is more interesting because we have to actually ask…

Embodiment being a killer feature for AGI seems weird to me. For the record, I have just argued in a different thread, that this stuff is not needed for "AGI", at least not the way I perceive it as being defined. And I believe that way is consistent with others in the field. But... if you'll allow my use of the distinction between "human level" intelligence and "human like" intelligence, then I will say that I think…

> the distinction between "human level" intelligence and "human like" intelligence

I 100% agree with this and think it is a important distinction. I'm glad you brought it up. One of my hobbies has been reading a lot of linguistics and about languages. There's the whole linguistic relativism topic at hand. When you learn just a little about linguistics you find that embodiment is embedded into our language, as the last sentence gave an example of (the use of "hand," which was likely unnoticed). There are lots of cultural references (especially with Americans) that make things more difficult too. Much of our language is dependent upon this multi-agent factor (I'd argue that language itself was born because we are social creatures). There's general language patterns that arise because of embodiment, environment, and culture. This affects the way we think. So I think this distinction between "human level" and "human like" is an important one. If AGI is not trained in a similar fashion to human growth and history it would have very different thinking styles, wants, and needs. But that wouldn't prevent it from being hyper-intelligent. I'll leave with an overly simplified saying

> If a lion could speak, I would not understand it.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#207

Post by cageface »

coldtea wrote: post #182
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…

> So the main argument is that humans have intelligence that is impossible to express through reason or codification. In other words, humans have a literal soul, divorced from physical world No, in other words, humans have tactile, empirical, emotional, social, etc intelligence that is perfectly physical but not available to mere software in a computer. It might be available to software running in humanoid robots, th…

This seems like a weak argument to me. We don't really understand how human intelligence works yet so how can we claim that computers will never realize similar intelligence? We don't know for a fact that human intelligence depends on these things.

I'm personally skeptical that we'll see AGI any time soon but I don't think we know enough to say this definitively.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#208

Post by bawolff »

mindcrime wrote: post #201
baddox wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly not the case. We can and absolutely have proven things to be impossible.

We can and absolutely have proven things to be impossible. What would you consider to be an example of that? And how does that square with the Problem of Induction which is the hole in our entire system of empirical knowledge generation?

Lots of things in math.

Yes to apply that to the real world, we have to use some assumptions like, the universe isnt a giant trick, the sun will rise tomorrow, we dont live in the matrix, etc. However given the context of this discussion those are fairly reasonable assumptions.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#209

Post by 3pt14159 »

vidarh wrote: post #58
3pt14159 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tho…

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

How can I believe this to be true if you haven't proven to me that a mind can know a truth yet?

> 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).

How can I believe that it moves the question "up one plane" when you haven't proven to me that a mind can know a truth yet?

Etc. Most philosophers will cede to this line of reasoning and at best call it boring ala Russell and then continue from there. But they're doing the same thing that people that believe in free will do. They're either denying the battlefield or they're moving the goal posts or they're not coming up with a cohesive definition of a mind or a truth or what have you.

My point is that you can mock the free will folks all you want, but coming down on the other side of the argument is just as rooted in belief sans evidence. There is no proof or hope of a proof that a mind can know a truth that is not circularly reasoned so any firm belief that there is no such thing as free will is a delusion, short of maybe divine intercession.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#210

Post by bawolff »

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.

You can give argument though. It is concievable it is possible to prove things like: a turing machine (which is an abstract mathematical model, which we absolutely can prove negatives. See for example rice's theorem) can never achieve "human intellegence" (if you come up with a concrete definition of human intelligence). From there you can make the statement: Any physically realized device that is faithfully modelled in terms of computational power by a turing machine, cannot have "human intelligence".

Sure you can't prove that silicon devices behave like turing machines, or even that they really exist, but for the sake of this discussion, what does that matter?

Post reply on HN