Live data from Hacker News

Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

nature.com

311–320 of 403 posts

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#311
It's a very unconvincing argument that culture, bodies or childhood are required for intelligence. Moreover, that computers could not have any of them (or functional equivalents, if in fact they are of any functional use at all).

I don't buy that the single data point that is Human intelligence has much to say about the possible bounds or limits of general intelligence.

Computers inhabit a world. They have interactions. Seems sufficient to me. As for culture - they have enough learning material of human culture, and it's not impossible to train multiple AI intelligences at the same time to create a culture of their own. Surely at some point in history Humans developed their culture from nothing? As for childhood - attempts at AI already have training periods where they are given training data, made more plastic and develop against simple situations before moving on to more complex situations.

The (also terrible and wrong) Chinese room argument is more convincing.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#312
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the sort of conflation of completely unrelated concepts as I found in the article. What on Earth has healing got to do with reasoning? You even say our bodies do it without conscious prompting, in other words it’s a completely irrelevant issue. Yes computers aren’t biological, they aren’t life, but so what? Why does that constrain their ability to interact with and learn from the world? AGI is defined…

For all the pontificating about souls as a means to discredit OP's beliefs, you all seem to avoid this statement: > Our only known good model for a machine that can create our consciousness is us. It took billions of years of the universe churning at random to accidentally generate us. We have no clue how to replicate that scale. Would you please provide a counterargument? Do you understand how difficult this really…

Technological progress is many orders of magnitudes faster than evolutionary change; assuming the 'magic' of the brain is indeed in the neural circuity, hardware is expected to be powerful enough to simulate that on a timescale of O(100) years in the future instead of O(10e9).

Of course, it's not a given that simulating connected neurons with action potentials or whatever is sufficient to capture the relevant features of the brain (perhaps long-distance em interactions are relevant? quantum magic? do we need to drop to the molecular level?) - but without proof to the contrary, we'll just have to wait and see.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#313
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the sort of conflation of completely unrelated concepts as I found in the article. What on Earth has healing got to do with reasoning? You even say our bodies do it without conscious prompting, in other words it’s a completely irrelevant issue. Yes computers aren’t biological, they aren’t life, but so what? Why does that constrain their ability to interact with and learn from the world? AGI is defined…

For all the pontificating about souls as a means to discredit OP's beliefs, you all seem to avoid this statement: > Our only known good model for a machine that can create our consciousness is us. It took billions of years of the universe churning at random to accidentally generate us. We have no clue how to replicate that scale. Would you please provide a counterargument? Do you understand how difficult this really…

That quoted sentence argues that we do not have AGI now. I have no counterargument against that. We do not have AGI now. That sentence on the other hand fails to argue it is impossible to develop AGI.

Someone before the invention of the aeroplane could have said: Our only known good model for flying is birds and insects. It took billions of years of the universe churning at random to accidentally generate birds and insects. We have no clue how to replicate that scale.

And yet we know that it's not impossible to create flying machines.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#314

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.

I'm wondering if that's just the philosophers form of thinking "there is no way a machine could ever do my job" which exists in virtually all professions.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#315
post #164

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…

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…

Hubert Dreyfus in his 1986 book "Mind Over Machine":

> The digital computer, when programmed to operate by taking a problem apart into features and combining them step by step according to inference rules, operates as a machine—a logic machine. However, the computer is so versatile it can also be used to model a holistic system. Indeed, recently, as the problems confronting the AI approach remained unsolved for more than a decade, a new generation of researchers have actually begun using computers to simulate such systems. It is too early to say whether the first steps in the direction of holistic similarity recognition will eventually lead to devices that can discern the similarity between whole real-world situations. We discuss the development here for the simple reason that it is the only alternative to the information processing approach that computer science has devised. [...] Remarkably, such devices are the subject of active research. When used to realize a distributed associative memory, computers are no longer functioning as symbol-manipulating systems in which the symbols represent features of the world and computations express relationship among the symbols as in conventional AI. Instead, the computer simulates a holistic system.

Further down, this is quite a good summary of Dreyfus general argument:

> Thanks to AI research, Plato's and Kant's speculation that the mind works according to rules has finally found its empirical test in the attempt to use logic machines to produce humanlike understanding. And, after two thousand years of refinement, the traditional view of mind has shown itself to be inadequate. Indeed, conventional AI as information processing looks like a perfect example of what Imre Lakatos would call a degenerating research program. [...] Current AI is based on the idea, prominent in philosophy since Descartes, that all understanding consists in forming and using appropriate representations. Given the nature of inference engines, AI's representations must be formal ones, and so commonsense understanding must be understood as some vast body of precise propositions, beliefs, rules, facts, and procedures. Thus formulated, the problem has so far resisted solution. We predict it will continue to do so.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#316
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That is, the physical world, including human cognition, can be realized by a Turing machine." How did you get to the conclusion that all physical world is computable? Rather a huge jump i would say. Sure some things are, but "all of it" would rather be a BIG assumption. Physical theories of the world are limited to our current state of observations and knowledge of the world, they AREN'T the actual world. Who is to…

How did you get to the conclusion that all physical world is computable? That’s not the conclusion, that’s the whole thesis. The whole point of it is that yes, it’s not provable, but so far we haven’t seen anything to suggest the contrary. All of our current physical theories are very much computable, for example.

[deleted]

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#317
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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."

Nothing to do with god.

Machine comes from mechanic and there is doubt, that general artificial intelligence can be achieved with a mechanical base.

But if you define any complex systema machine, then yeah sure, we humans are machines. Therefore GAI can be achieved with machines. Tautological proof.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#318
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That is, the physical world, including human cognition, can be realized by a Turing machine." How did you get to the conclusion that all physical world is computable? Rather a huge jump i would say. Sure some things are, but "all of it" would rather be a BIG assumption. Physical theories of the world are limited to our current state of observations and knowledge of the world, they AREN'T the actual world. Who is to…

How did you get to the conclusion that all physical world is computable? That’s not the conclusion, that’s the whole thesis. The whole point of it is that yes, it’s not provable, but so far we haven’t seen anything to suggest the contrary. All of our current physical theories are very much computable, for example.

My point is not whether all physical laws are computable, I have no doubt they are insofar as these laws are expressed mathematically. My point is rather that this search for laws might never finish and a complete ruleset never come about.

Like I said all current theories are based on current state of observations. Who is to say we don't observe something in the future for which these laws need to be revised? Who is to say this doesn't keep happening indefinitely? If such a "bottoming out" cannot even be conceived of, saying that the physical world, even a part of it, is exactly computable AS IT IS (all aspects of it) is utmost arrogance.

What do we know about the brain? how does it generate cognition? why does the color 'red' look like the way it does to you; does it look like the same to me? Unless the nature of such cognition and such a being which embodies this cognition is known one cannot say it is reducible or "emergent" from the CURRENT set or even any FUTURE set of physical laws we know or will know about.

The map is not the territory however minute in detail it becomes. Sure this map can become the territory itself by becoming it but then we cease to call it a "map". Say you want to understand how pendulums work, you make a pendulum, play with it. No one's going to call this actual pendulum a "simulation".

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#319
post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That is, the physical world, including human cognition, can be realized by a Turing machine." How did you get to the conclusion that all physical world is computable? Rather a huge jump i would say. Sure some things are, but "all of it" would rather be a BIG assumption. Physical theories of the world are limited to our current state of observations and knowledge of the world, they AREN'T the actual world. Who is to…

How did you get to the conclusion that all physical world is computable? That’s not the conclusion, that’s the whole thesis. The whole point of it is that yes, it’s not provable, but so far we haven’t seen anything to suggest the contrary. All of our current physical theories are very much computable, for example.

Church-Turing thesis is that for every algorithm you can compute you can define a turing machine that can compute it too. You still have show that you can compute answers to your questions about physical world or human cognition.

And we know that we can define an infinite amount of problems that can not ever be computed (or else you can for example solve the halting problem). So there would be infinite amount of questions about the world that we can not ever answer.

And there would be more questions that we can not answer (they are uncountable) than we can answer (they are countable). So if you have a question - chances are such that it can never be answered.

edit: more likely never can be answered.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#320
post #123
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…

As others have said, I think this is a better argument against machines emulating humanness than it is against the broader category of "general intelligence". For me it always comes down to: If we assume the human mind to be a physical, deterministic phenomenon, then an informational, deterministic system could simulate it. It's as simple as that. To take the brute-force route, every atom in a human body could be sim…

Why do we need the assume a deterministic system? As long as it physical and we believe physics can be described with computation, we can simulate it. Some randomness doesn't matter.
Post reply on HN