If natural processes can only be artfully and artificially arranged to perform computation and not thinking how is it that we are having this conversation.
Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
11–20 of 403 posts
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#12Ingenious. Another article like "We will never travel faster than lightspeed", or "We will never be able to live forever", or as people back in the stone age would have said "We will never have a fission reactor".
When will people finally realize that we know absolutely NOTHING about what's possible and whats not. Science made baby steps. We are 100 years in. And yeah, we know everything right? Yeah General AI... Not gonna happen.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#13It is difficult to build/create something you don't understand. A computer is just a playback machine for binary logic. We know that "intelligence" can create binary logic. We don't know if binary logic can create "intelligence". Claims that it is possible are really more "religious" than scientific at this point.
We know that machines with AGI are possible - humans are such machines.
Maybe you could discuss whether classical computers could achieve AGI, but I think overall the quest is to build machines with AGI, not necessarily in the form of classical computers.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#14I would have thought it's possible to pass the Turing test without being "in the world". But you'd have to be much more intelligent than an average human to do that, because you'd be successfully imitating something that is nothing like you.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#15I 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…
My hunch agrees with the paper. Because computers operate on the rational numbers instead of the real numbers, they can never be embodied. They are always in a simulation...
> Because computers operate on the rational numbers instead of the real numbers,
Computers are just devices that perform computations. It's perfectly possible to construct computers that operate on values that are continuous and not discrete. In fact, such computers have been constructed before. They are know as analog computers and were used for things like numerically solving differential equations.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#16It is difficult to build/create something you don't understand. A computer is just a playback machine for binary logic. We know that "intelligence" can create binary logic. We don't know if binary logic can create "intelligence". Claims that it is possible are really more "religious" than scientific at this point.
"A computer is just a playback machine for binary logic."
If you have code changing code, based on input, which is a neural net, then you have a bit more.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#17Achieving Strong AI makes no sense because we don't understand the human brain and how it works. Even if a non-biological AGI passes the hardest imaginable Turing test, there will be arguments against it because "it is still not like us".
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
My hunch agrees with the paper. Because computers operate on the rational numbers instead of the real numbers, they can never be embodied. They are always in a simulation...
Maybe I don’t understand your point, but our senses are also compressed to some extent. Your synapses fire or don’t fire, providing digitized input for some of your senses like hearing. At any point there is a discrete amount of hormones in your body. etc etc. That doesn’t seem categorically different from any man made sensor.
Our sensorium could be indistinguishable from how it'd be in a simulation without impacting my point. Software can hop from host to host (all Turing machines can simulate each other) but living intelligence is embodied.
Because of this, no matter how "smart" computers get, we can't trust them not to do stupid stuff. They are smart like that kid in high school who comes up with a formula to turn the world into silly putty, and is stupid enough to use it. There is more than one kind of intelligence, here the argument is that some kinds of intelligence require having skin in the game.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
My hunch agrees with the paper. Because computers operate on the rational numbers instead of the real numbers, they can never be embodied. They are always in a simulation...
This is like saying CD players will never be as good as vinyl record players because the first use digital signals (rational numbers) and the second analogue (real numbers).
if you want to be pedantic record players are also digital because they can't represent anything tighter than an atom or the molecule of vinyl
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
My hunch agrees with the paper. Because computers operate on the rational numbers instead of the real numbers, they can never be embodied. They are always in a simulation...
This is like saying CD players will never be as good as vinyl record players because the first use digital signals (rational numbers) and the second analogue (real numbers).
I'm on record saying heterodox things about the Nyquist theorem and SACD 1-bit DAC, so you are on topic. :)