If I get Level-5 driving, so I really care how it was achieved? In order to get Level-5 driving, the car must be able to identify a construction worker directing traffic, versus a random homeless guy, drunk, and directing traffic into to current water main construction pit. Does that require general AI? Given enough examples of drunk homeless people directing traffic into water main construction, maybe we don’t. It’ll be 100 years into the future before we’ve amassed that level of knowledge, but maybe it can happen.
Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
251–260 of 403 posts
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#252Here 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…
The Church-Turing thesis only states that the lambda calculus and Turing machines can compute the same functions. It has nothing to do with materialism or dualism and it certainly doesn’t state that the universe is a Turing machine.
It's funny, because I'd argue that the belief that "the universe is a Turing machine" is a kind of secular religion. Hardcore physicalists often betray themselves as not only being bad materialists but actually just idealists in denial.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have read it and you’re not missing anything. One of the examples of tacit knowledge they give is walking and that therefore it is impossible to teach a computer to walk. They should watch one of the videos from Boston Dynamics.
That's not teaching a computer to walk, that's building a walking machine. Subtle difference, but it's easy to prove; no matter how well you build a Boston dynamics robot, it will never like walking in the same way your TV will never like entertaining people. There's no "I" there to learn.
"Liking things" is just one part of a biological reward system not a metaphysical event, it is possible to create it just not with our current tech (so saying "never" is a stretch imo)
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tacit knowledge is knowledge that results from adapting to experience, like learning to tie shoelaces with practice, rather than something like finding the derivative of sin(x) by the usual mathematical proof method (reasoning step by formal step). Every deep learning system has tacit knowledge: it knows a chair when it sees one but can't explain how it knows. It just adapted its connections to training until it got…
> Every deep learning system has tacit knowledge: it knows a chair when it sees one but can't explain how it knows. A traditional computer program that can find the derivative of sin(x) also can not explain how it knows.
> A traditional computer program that can find the derivative of sin(x) also can not explain how it knows.
Oh but it could, and that's the point. Some computer differentiation techniques just follow the same rules you learned when you took calculus. They typically don't show you which rules they followed, but they easily could. Other differentiation techniques are more exotic but there's no reason they couldn't show you the chain of computations and/or deductions they went through to arrive at that derivative. Such programs can easily justify their results and even teach humans calculus if configured properly.
Contrast that with the chair example. It is impossible right now to write a program that can show a human the chain of reasoning it went through to decide some image is a chair, because no such chain exists. There's a giant iterated polynomial with nonlinear threshold functions and a million coefficients, but there's no chain of reasoning.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#255Here 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 don't think it has anything to do with souls. Most "knowledge" deep learning systems have seems tacit to me: it would be practically impossible for people to write programs that articulate and incorporate that knowledge without machine learning (people tried, for decades), and it certainly isn't "derived from formal principles of reasoning" in anything but a tangential mathematical sense. (I too have not read the w…
> Most "knowledge" deep learning systems have seems tacit to me
it's an interesting question if they're actually tacit in the human sense or not. At the base level even deep learning systems certainly rely on digital manipulation. It's almost certain that the human-brain due to speed constraints of biochemical processes doesn't run on tons of matrix-multiplication or loss functions, so it's an open question I guess if deep learning systems really just resemble the tacit capacity of humans or if there's something fundamentally different in the architecture of organic systems that cannot be replicated at least in today's machines. Which I think is actually fairly likely to be honest and I always wonder why it's disregarded.
It's funny that the top comment of this chain asserts dualism, but I think dualism is overwhelmingly common among CS folks, who almost seem to treat intelligence like some sort of platonic thing, completely ignoring the stuff it's made out of.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#256Here 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…
The author of the article specifically says this: I have earlier said that neural networks need not be programmed, and therefore can handle tacit knowledge.
Also you are misunderstanding what tacit means. It doesn't mean anything mystical - merely that it is gained from observations rather than logically reasoning about something.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#257Here 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…
[deleted]
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#258Here 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…
Tacit knowledge is knowledge that results from adapting to experience, like learning to tie shoelaces with practice, rather than something like finding the derivative of sin(x) by the usual mathematical proof method (reasoning step by formal step). Every deep learning system has tacit knowledge: it knows a chair when it sees one but can't explain how it knows. It just adapted its connections to training until it got…
The article specifically says "I have earlier said that neural networks need not be programmed, and therefore can handle tacit knowledge."
The OP comments here is just wrong: it misunderstands what tacit means, and mischaracterizes the argument in the article.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#259I came to this article expecting a logical proof of why AI was impossible, but instead found the following tautological argument: hard AI, which I define as intelligence with tacit knowledge, which in turn I define as knowledge that cannot be ran in algorithms, is impossible to be ran in algorithms. Disappointing. My counterpoint: is there anything that cannot be ran in algorithms? The way I see it the only thing sto…
We have mapped the nervous system of a basic crustacean completely and it hasnt made any of the hard problems easier.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#260Here 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, that cannot be expressed in our physical world thus making any endeavour to create artificial intelligence impossible.
No, it just means there is no simple symbolic path that is human understandable towards human level intelligence. We need systems like neural nets and simulators to 'learn' things that can't be directly formalised. And we have tried for 50 years to formalise intelligence in symbolic representations.