61–70 of 83 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It argues of “impossibilities” and also proves it.
I think you need to read it again.
But you may have a different version of history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ot…
"Current LLMs are not going to get to AGI" is a different and much weaker claim than "AGI is mathematically impossible."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 broa…
> Mostly because we actually do use our conscious thoughts to fight disease when our immune system can't. I think in some sense you're right. There's a higher level way to address disease that humans have made progress on. But in the critical sense more related to the point I was making I completely disagree. The sense I'm speaking of is we do not (maybe one day we well) directly affect disease states without our bra…
Just because we don't have direct conscious control over our white blood cells or pancreas does not mean we don't have general intelligence. We may not control them, but we have the ability to figure out how they work. Our intelligence is general in the sense we can understand body functions, or invent calculus, or develop relativity, or any unlistable number of other things. If a machine can do that - understand arbitrary concepts, even if its at or below human abilities, we'd have AGI. Instead with LLMs we have a tool that can mimic understanding, but when you go a bit deeper its clear that understanding is not present. Not to say LLMs don't have uses, they obviously do, but they are not intelligent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Current LLMs are not going to get to AGI" is a different and much weaker claim than "AGI is mathematically impossible."
I was responding to the claim that an observer bound by a system may understand and replicate all phenomenon within that system. It's quite a bold claim which has already exited the bounds of science, IMHO. That you're using the language of religion and philosophy is the point.
But also: if general intelligence were computable, but it was not possible to learn how to make the computer that can compute it, then you've disproved evolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doing artificial?
The brain still exists in the same universe running on the same mathematical laws. The A adds no constraints that can make anything impossible. There is nothing that the brain is doing that we cannot also replicate, we just cannot get to the same scale yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mostly because we actually do use our conscious thoughts to fight disease when our immune system can't. I think in some sense you're right. There's a higher level way to address disease that humans have made progress on. But in the critical sense more related to the point I was making I completely disagree. The sense I'm speaking of is we do not (maybe one day we well) directly affect disease states without our bra…
Human intelligence is general intelligence. Just because we don't have direct conscious control over our white blood cells or pancreas does not mean we don't have general intelligence. We may not control them, but we have the ability to figure out how they work. Our intelligence is general in the sense we can understand body functions, or invent calculus, or develop relativity, or any unlistable number of other thing…
But in this world, in this universe, there are lots of problems to solve. Humans understand these problems more than any other organism or machine we know of, but we are not general. The most we can say is we are the most general. There are far too many problem domains that are beyond the capability of humans to solve to call human intelligence general intelligence. The pancreas _does_ have direct control over its problem domain. That makes it a specific form of cognition. Maybe one day we will have that too. So does that mean when that day comes we are more general? I believe it does.
I like Francois Chollet's definition of intelligence: efficiency of skill acquisition, not demonstration of skill. I don't know if I should attribute that to him but for me, he is the first person I heard put it so succinctly. Using that definition there, is currently no known learning architecture that can acquire _any_ arbitrary skill efficiently. You and I do not currently do not have the ability to acquire the skill to consciously regulate bodily functions. It is a form of cognition that doesn't map to any thing we're aware of. Understanding how it works, in principle doesn't mean you have the skill to perform it.
I would politely suggest that until you do that and then come up with a convincing rebuttal for every point they make that is not self-evidently wrong, you shouldn't be wasting humans' time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "A" stands for "Artificial" in contrast to what our brains do.
"artificial" literally means "man-made". It does not imply anything about how the created thing works, and whether or not it is different from the corresponding natural equivalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was responding to the claim that an observer bound by a system may understand and replicate all phenomenon within that system. It's quite a bold claim which has already exited the bounds of science, IMHO. That you're using the language of religion and philosophy is the point.
Nope, try again. "You can't possibly learn enough about a system to simulate it" is still a different and weaker claim than "It is mathematically impossible to compute this thing that is being computed." But also: if general intelligence were computable, but it was not possible to learn how to make the computer that can compute it, then you've disproved evolution.
> How is your brain doing it then?
Do you have an answer? What indication do we have that any AGI we would create would have to follow the same process to achieve the result? Can humans recreate all phenomenon observed in the universe? You're arguing yes in all of these then? I'd love to read more of that argument. I don't care about this proof though. I don't think I've indicated I think AGI is impossible. I care far more about why someone would be convinced it must be possible for humans to recreate in the exact same manner as the brain, which this commenter and you seem to think. I know humans have not shown we can fully model our observations cohesively.
> But also: if general intelligence were computable, but it was not possible to learn how to make the computer that can compute it, then you've disproved evolution.
record scratch What? Did I agree to all of these premises? Do you have some backing for the three or four assumptions you've made in this sentence? You still need to show humans not only could be but are capable of replicating the system. I am asking you for some argument out there that says everything we observe in nature humans can replicate in the exact same way it occurs. That's a much stronger statement than such intelligence exists. You can just link a book. I am not sold on one way or the other, but you seem very confident. Is there some argument I can read? To me, our models in physics point to a fragmented and contradictory understanding of our world to get results. But yes, results are results, but that doesn't mean we are doing anything but modeling -- but can we model everything? Is that the implication of evolution?
We seem to be wandering into capital-S Science vs. science, and I'm not really into religious discussions here. I would love to understand why you seem to think I'm so dimwitted as to dismiss with an edge, when all of this stems from a glib reply to a glib reply that I am no less convinced is in fact glib and fatuous. (And that original comment was not yours, lest you feel insulted in the same way you have insulted me.)