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

Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#11

Post by codyb »

Gobitron wrote: post #5
cliveowen wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and…

I'm extremely skeptical of this, even though I spend a good deal of my time trying to automate machine 2 machine communication (which gets me thinking about this a lot). I also think that there's a good amount of hubris in these scientists believing that the brain is something that can be emulated by computing power of any kind...are we sure it's an apt analogy (brain as computer)?

It's the holy grail of the field.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#12

Post by krapp »

pygy_ wrote: post #8
cliveowen wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and…

You don't need to emulate brains to create intelligence anymore than you have to imitate birds to build airplanes.

Isn't that an open question?

Also, airplanes do imitate birds in a few fundamental ways.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#13

Post by gamegoblin »

Gobitron wrote: post #5
cliveowen wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and…

I'm extremely skeptical of this, even though I spend a good deal of my time trying to automate machine 2 machine communication (which gets me thinking about this a lot). I also think that there's a good amount of hubris in these scientists believing that the brain is something that can be emulated by computing power of any kind...are we sure it's an apt analogy (brain as computer)?

On an abstract level, the brain is just a complex circuit. Neurons take inputs as electric signals and send outputs as electric signals.

Neurons are bit more general than our typical logic gates, but at a high level they have a lot in common.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#14

Post by solipsism »

cliveowen wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and…

mostly because we can't expect to unravel in a few decades what evolution has spent millennia perfecting.

As others have suggested, this is demonstrably wrong, trivially so.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#15

Post by solipsism »

Gobitron wrote: post #5
cliveowen wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and…

I'm extremely skeptical of this, even though I spend a good deal of my time trying to automate machine 2 machine communication (which gets me thinking about this a lot). I also think that there's a good amount of hubris in these scientists believing that the brain is something that can be emulated by computing power of any kind...are we sure it's an apt analogy (brain as computer)?

Where is the hubris in attempting to do something without knowing whether it's possible? What is it about AI that seems to make people defensive? Is it the idea that human intelligence might not be as special as we think it is?

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#16

Post by solipsism »

krapp wrote: post #12
pygy_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to emulate brains to create intelligence anymore than you have to imitate birds to build airplanes.

Isn't that an open question? Also, airplanes do imitate birds in a few fundamental ways.

Do rockets?

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#17

Post by krapp »

solipsism wrote: post #16
krapp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that an open question? Also, airplanes do imitate birds in a few fundamental ways.

Do rockets?

Well, no. You're right. I don't know whether that invalidates my point though. It may not be necessary to model the human brain to achieve machine intelligence. It may also be that any sufficient machine intelligence would wind up modelling the human brain to a limited but necessary degree, in a similar way that birds and airplanes share wings with similar lift effects, but different mechanics. Until there's something real to point at, I think it's semantics.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#18

Post by TheIronYuppie »

I think that one thing that people are missing when they think AI is not a threat is there does not have to be a singular AI for every problem.

Chess computers are better than humans, but I wouldn't trust them to manage the electricity grid. What if there was an equivalent quality of computer specialized for every significant area of society - electricity grid, packet routing, high speed trading, etc etc.

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#19

Post by hyp0 »

cliveowen wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and…

You're being a bit parochial, specificially anthropocentric. Why a human brain? If you consider it's possible that other intelligences exist in the universe, they probably won't have human brains... Or, consider other animals on earth: given several million years and the right conditions, do you consider it possible that intelligence (at our level) could evolve again - and I don't just mean apes, dolphins and elephants. Especially fascinating in this connection are parrots, crows and other corvids, which are obviously quite intelligent, but have a completely different neuroanatomy of the higher centers from mammals.

Are really we so special? Apart from being first (that we know of)? The history of science is a history of anthropocentrism iconoclasm!

Of course, copying what we know works seems like a reasonable starting point.

Secondly, who said it has to be done within a few decades? If it is done within centuries or millennia, it is still done. "Infeasible" would mean it can't be done, ever.

Personally, I tend towards 50 years off... as it has been for a long time (and probably will continue to be)

Re: Transcending Complacency on Superintelligent Machines

#20

Post by EzraVinh »

solipsism wrote: post #14
cliveowen wrote: post #3

Am I the only one who's skeptical about the feasibility of AI? As I see it there are two ways to think about AI: first there's the kind of AI that arises from software emulating parts of the human brain based on our current understanding of its inner functioning and produces human-like intelligence, so even if the mechanisms are different from those actually employed by the brain the output is similar in response and…

mostly because we can't expect to unravel in a few decades what evolution has spent millennia perfecting. As others have suggested, this is demonstrably wrong, trivially so.

Actually, there are some areas where evolution still has an advantage. A biologist was explaining to me how artificial enzymes (man made proteins) can at best speed up a chemical reaction by 10^3 - 10^6, while natural enzymes typically speed them up by 10^9 - 10^12. Might have got those number wrong, but his point was that natural enzymes beat artificial ones by a wide margin.
Post reply on HN