Live data from Hacker News

Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

nature.com

171–180 of 403 posts

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#171
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the brain grows and develops in humans is not very well understood. We mostly use animal models to understand the nervous system, not humans. As an example of why this is problematic: mouse embryos pretty much turn inside out at day 3, and are the only known mammal to do this. All others, including humans, don't. Why and how are unknown, as are the effects on long term development. Basically, mice are better subj…

Embryology is a fascinating field. How does a single cell develop into a functional animal? This process developed under evolutionary pressure.

Oh yes! Developmental biology is just bonkers tough.

Take all the hard parts of bio normally, and now add in a ton of mitosis, long range movement of cells, hard to detect chemical gradients, cell-to-cell junctions, and pure random chance. All just going bananas fast for 'normal' bio processes.

It is a crazy tough field to get work done in. No wonder no one uses mammals to do anything.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#172

Imagine you tried to replicate your PC by creating a simulation of the CPU. Sure you could probably simulate some of the functions without too much difficulty, but the value of the PC is not in it’s CPU alone, it’s in the interaction of all the components, the screen, the ram, the disk, the keyboard, the GPU. Isolated these components provide a fraction of the value they do when they are combined and simulating the w…

Well, of course. The line is the body. The human body is a line of ergodic behavior stemming back to the origin of not merely the species, but of life itself: a chemical that said "I am that I am" and became life by continuing form or not continuing form. You and I will do the same. The form is ultimately shaped by the environment. What made the environment? Now enter Human. What of this form made it so unique? The r…

Now that is impressively artful. Excellent.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#173

This is possibly the worst article I have ever seen in Nature. It is barely at the level of an undergraduate essay on AI (or AGI or ANI, as the author prefers). A hand-waving argument about "computers not being in the world" that relies on not bothering to define "computers", "being in" or "the world". Convenient avoidance of almost every more subtle anti-Searle/anti-Dreyfus critic (notably Dennett). Almost wilfull n…

Note, is not in the the flagship journal, it's an affiliated journal under the Nature imprint. There are about 40 other such: https://www.nature.com/siteindex (see under "N").

It's a Springer joint. Note that the counterpart journal, Science, is published by the AAAS, and is not for profit the way Nature is. If you're interested in science, Science is a great one-stop shop and it's about $120 per year.

Sometimes one wonders whether the chase for exciting stories affects some Nature publications.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#174

This feels a lot like Douglas Hofstadter's elaborate explanation in Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid of how computers will never beat the best human chess players.

Every couple of months we get hit with the same wave of AI stories, and every couple of months I post these two links, inspired by ideas from that book.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Two different versions of the same idea.

You can't build a perfect machine, because that would imply understanding reality perfectly.

Ugly reality is going to break your perfect machine, eventually. With long enough time horizons, the probability approaches 1.

When your machine breaks, you are going to need something else, either another, newer machine which can fix or replace it (in Godel's example, the new book of logic/truth), or something dumb like a human wetware, just flexible enough to know the right answer is "unplug the machine and plug it back in"

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#175

This is possibly the worst article I have ever seen in Nature. It is barely at the level of an undergraduate essay on AI (or AGI or ANI, as the author prefers). A hand-waving argument about "computers not being in the world" that relies on not bothering to define "computers", "being in" or "the world". Convenient avoidance of almost every more subtle anti-Searle/anti-Dreyfus critic (notably Dennett). Almost wilfull n…

Note, is not in the the flagship journal, it's an affiliated journal under the Nature imprint. There are about 40 other such: https://www.nature.com/siteindex (see under "N"). It's a Springer joint. Note that the counterpart journal, Science , is published by the AAAS, and is not for profit the way Nature is. If you're interested in science, Science is a great one-stop shop and it's about $120 per year. Sometimes one…

Slightly off-topic:

I would be interested in keeping up the latest cutting-edge science developements, but I expect a Nature subscription is too heavy-duty for that. Not necessarily because of the price, but I don't think I would end up using it.

Instead, what would fit my interests better would be a science newsletter that, say, once a month summarizes the most interesting recent developements and sends them to my inbox. I would then use that as a jump-off point and even read the full articles I care about in Nature.

Are there any such newsletters?

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#176

This is possibly the worst article I have ever seen in Nature. It is barely at the level of an undergraduate essay on AI (or AGI or ANI, as the author prefers). A hand-waving argument about "computers not being in the world" that relies on not bothering to define "computers", "being in" or "the world". Convenient avoidance of almost every more subtle anti-Searle/anti-Dreyfus critic (notably Dennett). Almost wilfull n…

Note, is not in the the flagship journal, it's an affiliated journal under the Nature imprint. There are about 40 other such: https://www.nature.com/siteindex (see under "N"). It's a Springer joint. Note that the counterpart journal, Science , is published by the AAAS, and is not for profit the way Nature is. If you're interested in science, Science is a great one-stop shop and it's about $120 per year. Sometimes one…

Thanks for the clarification. I hadn't noticed the "not in the real Nature" status when reading it.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#178
> Most of us are experts on walking. However, if we try to articulate how we walk, we certainly give a description that does not capture the skills involved in walking.

because it's largely automatic for us, we need to know where to go but not how

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gait_(human)#Control_of_gait_b...

with AI this means we can automate more than we need to genuinely understand, often times approximation gives good enough solution

we humans often fool ourselves on how capable we actually are, but then yet without training in dangerous situation we simply act on instinct and impulse

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#179
post #170

[deleted]

> Once grown, this brain knows nothing about objects in the physical world.

Unfortunately this experiment has already been done, on an abused girl named Genie.

> one can imagine, the know-nothing brain will learn to

She was never able to learn.

So does this refute your premise, or will you say "that's different"?

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#180

Here is, to me, the relevant line: "Hubert Dreyfus, who argued that computers, who have no body, no childhood and no cultural practice, could not acquire intelligence at all. One of Dreyfus’ main arguments was that human knowledge is partly tacit, and therefore cannot be articulated and incorporated in a computer program. " I have not read the rest of the article but in the introduction it's stated: "The article furt…

I'm not sure how you can say computers have no body and no childhood. I think someone who doesn't know computers very well just doesn't see it, but they actually have both.
Post reply on HN