Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

#41

Post by chrsw »

mindcrime wrote: post #25

AGI Is Mathematically Impossible Unless you believe in magic, the human brain proves that human level general intelligence is possible in our physical universe, running on a system based on the laws of said physical universe. Given that, there's no particular reason to think that "what the brain does" OR a reasonably close approximation, can't be done on another "system based on the laws of our physical universe." Al…

Human intelligence is not general intelligence. If it were, you'd be able to use your conscious thoughts to fight off diseases and you wouldn't need your immune system, for example.

The problem I see isn't that AGI isn't possible, that's not even surprising. The problem is the term "AGI" caught on when people really meant "AHI" or artificial _human_ intelligence, which is fundamentally distinct from AGI.

AGI is difficult to define and quite likely impossible to implement. AHI is obviously implementable but I'm unaware of any serious public research that has made significant progress towards this goal. LLMs, SSMs or any other trainable artificial systems are not oriented towards AHI and, in my opinion, are highly unlikely achieve this goal.

Re: AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

#42

Post by seu »

mindcrime wrote: post #25

AGI Is Mathematically Impossible Unless you believe in magic, the human brain proves that human level general intelligence is possible in our physical universe, running on a system based on the laws of said physical universe. Given that, there's no particular reason to think that "what the brain does" OR a reasonably close approximation, can't be done on another "system based on the laws of our physical universe." Al…

> another "system based on the laws of our physical universe."

Since when is mathematics based on the laws of our physical universe? last time I checked, it's an abstract system with no material reality.

Re: AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

#43

Post by DragonStrength »

aetherson wrote: post #27
DragonStrength wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "A" stands for "Artificial" in contrast to what our brains do.

If you want to argue for a fundamentally non-material mind (ie, that human cognition happens in a physically impossible, spiritual plane), then cool. Though you might want to give some consideration to how much it seems like physical processes on the brain can demonstrably affect cognition. If you aren't arguing for a non-materialist position, then the distinction between "artificial" and human intelligence isn't mea…

There's no reason to assume our current pursuit is not a dead end for any number of reasons we do not yet understand. There is a lot of faith we are capturing the same thing based on perceptions, which have a lot to do with the individual observer. It seems very important to some folks that our natural process is a mirror of what our technology does. The same result does not mean it is the same process or anything other than a mirage -- though one that may trick a lot of us.

Every generation tries to map its most complex technology onto its understanding of nature. "AGI" has a specific meaning today, but if you want it to mean atheism versus theism or whatever materialist argument, you're far outside of science and technology. Like our fathers of the Enlightenment with their watchmaker god. The idea there is some way for humans to break free of nature seems like a religious belief to me, but whether you agree or not, certainly there is room for doubting that faith, since we're outside the realm of what science can explore.

Re: AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

#44

Post by DragonStrength »

mindcrime wrote: post #35
DragonStrength wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "A" stands for "Artificial" in contrast to what our brains do.

That's kind of distinction with no distinction though, in this context. Our brains are physical machines, and computers are physical machines. Sure, one is wetware and based on chemistry, biology, and some electricity, while the other is based on electricity, logic gates, and bits and bytes, but still... if one can be intelligent, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason to think that the other can't as well.

Oh certainly there is: why assume we will ever be able to fully replicate the natural process? We may very well be bound here by our own bodies.

Re: AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

#45

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

chrsw wrote: post #41
mindcrime wrote: post #25

AGI Is Mathematically Impossible Unless you believe in magic, the human brain proves that human level general intelligence is possible in our physical universe, running on a system based on the laws of said physical universe. Given that, there's no particular reason to think that "what the brain does" OR a reasonably close approximation, can't be done on another "system based on the laws of our physical universe." Al…

Human intelligence is not general intelligence. If it were, you'd be able to use your conscious thoughts to fight off diseases and you wouldn't need your immune system, for example. The problem I see isn't that AGI isn't possible, that's not even surprising. The problem is the term "AGI" caught on when people really meant "AHI" or artificial _human_ intelligence, which is fundamentally distinct from AGI. AGI is diffi…

> Human intelligence is not general intelligence. If it were, you'd be able to use your conscious thoughts to fight off diseases and you wouldn't need your immune system, for example.

The above is nonsense. Mostly because we actually do use our conscious thoughts to fight disease when our immune system can't. That's what medical science is for. We used our intelligence to figure out antibiotics, for example.

The broadly accepted meaning of AGI is human intelligence on a machine. Redefining it to mean something else does nothing useful.

Re: AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

#46

Post by jacknews »

seu wrote: post #42
mindcrime wrote: post #25

AGI Is Mathematically Impossible Unless you believe in magic, the human brain proves that human level general intelligence is possible in our physical universe, running on a system based on the laws of said physical universe. Given that, there's no particular reason to think that "what the brain does" OR a reasonably close approximation, can't be done on another "system based on the laws of our physical universe." Al…

> another "system based on the laws of our physical universe." Since when is mathematics based on the laws of our physical universe? last time I checked, it's an abstract system with no material reality.

The OP isn't comparing maths.

They say humans exists and are intelligent, therefore intelligence is possible in this universe. And it might well be possible in other configurations within this universe, on computers for example.

Re: AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

#47

Post by Retric »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #24
automatic6131 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could believe we're not generally intelligent.

Then your definition of general intelligence is useless.

Being accurate is hardly useless. Individual people are worse at some tasks than others beyond what past training alone would produce.

Re: AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

#48

Post by glimshe »

mindcrime wrote: post #25

AGI Is Mathematically Impossible Unless you believe in magic, the human brain proves that human level general intelligence is possible in our physical universe, running on a system based on the laws of said physical universe. Given that, there's no particular reason to think that "what the brain does" OR a reasonably close approximation, can't be done on another "system based on the laws of our physical universe." Al…

This. First thing that came to my mind when I read the headline. Sounds like someone saying "Birds fly but we can't make planes because flying is mathematically impossible".

Or.. "After Johnny read the paper humanity disappeared in a puff of logic"

Re: AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

#49

Post by [deleted] »

pama wrote: post #21

I didnt read your draft paper, but your premise in HN sounds a bit off to me. AGI does not assume the ability for finding or learning an optimal solution to every problem (with that assumption it would be trivial to prove it impossible in many different ways). Independent of the exact definition, a system of intelligence that is better or equal to the best human in any domain would be at least termed AGI. (If there e…

[deleted]

Re: AGI Is Mathematically Impossible (3): Kolmogorov Complexity

#50

Post by jhanschoo »

mindcrime wrote: post #30
pama wrote: post #21

I didnt read your draft paper, but your premise in HN sounds a bit off to me. AGI does not assume the ability for finding or learning an optimal solution to every problem (with that assumption it would be trivial to prove it impossible in many different ways). Independent of the exact definition, a system of intelligence that is better or equal to the best human in any domain would be at least termed AGI. (If there e…

Independent of the exact definition, a system of intelligence that is better or equal to the best human in any domain would be at least termed AGI. Exactly. There's this "thing" you see in certain circles, where people (intentionally?) mis-interpret the "G" in AGI as meaning "the most general possible intelligence". But that's not the reality. AGI has pretty much always been taken to mean "AI that is approximately hu…

I think that OP's conclusion may be true in a not very meaningful sense: once a particular non-trivial threshold of competence is defined for every task (infinitely many), then any policy must be bad at some of them.
Post reply on HN