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

Embodiment is indispensable for AGI

keerthanapg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–159 of 159 posts

Re: Embodiment is indispensable for AGI

#151

Post by Isinlor »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #147
Isinlor wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to not be embodied. Controlling CPU and other hardware like motherboard and computer screen is an embodiment. Why would moving physical objects like electrons by micro meters not be good enough, but by meters it would?

You are technically correct, but there is an implied locus when people say something is "intelligence". The ghosts in Super Mario World are "intelligent" and "embodied" in Super Mario World, but they are not "embodied" on Earth and thus cannot be "intelligent" there. The "G" in AGI implies intelligence on Earth , not in a video game.

Super Mario World is on Earth, unless you run it on ISS.

Re: Embodiment is indispensable for AGI

#152

Post by Isinlor »

Baeocystin wrote: post #36
Isinlor wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to not be embodied. Controlling CPU and other hardware like motherboard and computer screen is an embodiment. Why would moving physical objects like electrons by micro meters not be good enough, but by meters it would?

It's not that the computation is physical that matters- it's the feedback and interaction from the world at human scales that a physical form would provide. The assumption is that anchoring an AGI to our scale will lead to human-scale perception and solutions.

Sure, no argument here.

But the question "Can a CPU experience qualia?" can not be answered by saying:

"no, because CPU computation exists on some platonic ideas plane".

Computation is physical both in brain and in silica.

Re: Embodiment is indispensable for AGI

#153

Post by Isinlor »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #62
UmbertoNoEco wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's trivial to give a regular CPU better sensing than you in dozens of variables (pressure, temperature, voltage, CO concentration, etc), so your point is rather weak.

I absolutely agree. You can, and better than humans. Not only better for any one sense, but also more senses than humans have. But that isn't what Isinlor was talking about. They said "moving electrons around" within the normal CPU circuitry as if that was the same as actuators controlling the external world. It's not.

As UmbertoNoEco says, CPUs absolutely are actuators controlling flow of electrons.

In fact a single transistor is both a sensor and actuator.

In fact you can use them to do things they were not designed to do like trough row hammer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Row_hammer

CPUs can also detect things like collisions with cosmic rays.

CPUs just can't produce macroscopic forces relevant on human scale.

Re: Embodiment is indispensable for AGI

#154

Post by Isinlor »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #28
Isinlor wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to not be embodied. Controlling CPU and other hardware like motherboard and computer screen is an embodiment. Why would moving physical objects like electrons by micro meters not be good enough, but by meters it would?

It's not micrometers vs meters, or electrons vs macro objects. It's primarily a matter of sensor density. That is, I feel my fingers move in a way that a CPU does not feel an electron move. When I speak, I experience far more than a CPU experiences writing some bits to some output ports. And so on. Does that mean that embodiment is required? No. But your definition of "embodied" misses the point of the discussion.

You will also encounter issues here.

Transistor is a sensor. It detects voltage on the base pin. Transistor density and so sensor density on a modern CPU is really high. In fact modern CPU transistor density is 3 orders of magnitude higher than nerve density even on your retina.

It's at the order of ~100,000 rods/mm^2 for retina and ~100,000,000 transistors/mm^2 for modern CPU.

Re: Embodiment is indispensable for AGI

#155

Post by zxwx »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #142
zxwx wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or a more succinct question: why do you think a simulation of consciousness is the same as consciousness? What other simulations of things are identical with the things?

I think that a sufficiently accurate simulation of a system exhibits the same emerging properties as the system itself. For example, if I can perfectly simulate the weather in some simple planet, all possible emerging weather phenomena for that planet (say like clouds, rain etc) will be perfectly replicated in the simulation. Similarly, if we can perfectly simulate a human body, all of the emerging human phenomena wi…

You lost me. You think consciousness is a _physical_ phenomenon that would necessarily emerge from an accurate _simulation_ of a particle system? If it’s a physical phenomenon in reality, then just like the clouds and rain in your weather sim aren’t physical, only a simulation of consciousness will be present in your simulation.

Re: Embodiment is indispensable for AGI

#156

Post by FartyMcFarter »

zxwx wrote: post #155
FartyMcFarter wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that a sufficiently accurate simulation of a system exhibits the same emerging properties as the system itself. For example, if I can perfectly simulate the weather in some simple planet, all possible emerging weather phenomena for that planet (say like clouds, rain etc) will be perfectly replicated in the simulation. Similarly, if we can perfectly simulate a human body, all of the emerging human phenomena wi…

You lost me. You think consciousness is a _physical_ phenomenon that would necessarily emerge from an accurate _simulation_ of a particle system? If it’s a physical phenomenon in reality, then just like the clouds and rain in your weather sim aren’t physical, only a simulation of consciousness will be present in your simulation.

Feel free to replace "physical phenomena" with "phenomena caused by physics laws" if it makes more sense that way.

Re: Embodiment is indispensable for AGI

#157

Post by romanows »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #148
romanows wrote: post #3

Sure, if you define AGI as needing to be able to perform all physical tasks that a physically median-or-better adult human could perform, maybe it needs to be embodied essentially by definition. I don't think the physical aspect is implied by "artificial" or "intelligence", and I would argue not by "general" either seeing as how it's modifying "intelligence". Also, think about humans who cannot accomplish physical ta…

OK, so the AGI doesn't need to be intelligent about anything physical... What does that leave? What is it intelligent about? > think about humans who cannot accomplish physical tasks of this standard. Babies Babies aren't intelligent, and without bodies they can never become intelligent. A baby who is fully paralyzed (disembodied) can't even learn to see or hear let alone operate intelligently in the world.

A non-embodied AGI could know and reason about physical stuff. Non-physical intelligence abounds, no? This conversation we're having here is not in the physical world.

You're right that babies aren't up to what my standard for AGI would be either, that's a bad example, good catch.

Re: Embodiment is indispensable for AGI

#158

Post by erikpukinskis »

Isinlor wrote: post #151
erikpukinskis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are technically correct, but there is an implied locus when people say something is "intelligence". The ghosts in Super Mario World are "intelligent" and "embodied" in Super Mario World, but they are not "embodied" on Earth and thus cannot be "intelligent" there. The "G" in AGI implies intelligence on Earth , not in a video game.

Super Mario World is on Earth, unless you run it on ISS.

No, the computer that runs it is on Earth, but Mario’s actual world is nowhere on earth, it’s a fully distinct reality.

Re: Embodiment is indispensable for AGI

#159

Post by ShamelessC »

mrtranscendence wrote: post #133
ShamelessC wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just not relevant. It's an ill-defined measure for something that (all due respect) makes philosophy majors feel like they're participating in something they're unqualified to participate in.

With similarly all due respect, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about here. Philosophers aren't qualified to pontificate on the nuances of building language models, but they can have plenty to say on consciousness and intelligence. When you ignore them you get ... let's call them funny tweets saying that some large language models might be conscious.

Sorry, my prior comment was incredibly rude - must have been in a bad mood but that's no excuse. I agree that outside perspective is valuable (although I would wager that such tweets are more attempts at getting headlines/funding than at being earnest).
Post reply on HN