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

Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

qntm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#21

Post by boredguy8 »

extension wrote: post #17
boredguy8 wrote: post #8

Searle's 'experiment' is silly. Searle is trying to make readers empathize with the 'person in the box'. Let's concede, for the moment, that the person in the box doesn't understand Chinese in any meaningful way. That says nothing about whether or not the SYSTEM on a WHOLE understands Chinese. Given the constraints of Searle's example (that every input produces a 'correct' output, but does so via this labour-intensiv…

Since human motivations and preferences are caused by evolutionary forces, I don't see how an AI would acquire such things, aside from what we build into it. And if we wanted to build motivation into it, it shouldn't be difficult, once we have an artificial mind capable of understanding the necessary concepts.

1) A keyboard is not an evolutionary influence condom. Those influences affect code decisions that we make. So imagine we create AI that 'desires' the continuation of human life at some level, and assume this is a manifestation of our evolutionary drive to survive. Such a beast may answer a query such as, "How do I build an atomic bomb?" with feigned boredom (to hide an unwillingness to answer my question).

2) A lot of AI research is premised upon modeling selection between choices. It seems entirely possible that the questions I have would be incredibly boring compared to whatever other thoughts are there to be had. That is: what's useful to us might not be coequal with AI, and that limited, domain-specific pseudo-intelligence is really what's necessary. But any time there are external constraints on exploration space (for instance, requiring a response within a certain time), we don't know what we're missing out on.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#22

Post by FlorinAndrei »

lionheart wrote: post #20

Here's why I disagree: smart human beings evolved from not-very-smart primates. That proves there is a natural process by which greater intelligence can be created. Therefore there is no reason that an even greater intelligence cannot be created with help from man. And for singularity's sake super-human intelligence doesn't even have to be an AI. Genetically-engineered super-intelligent primates would do the trick as…

What if natural evolution has become quick enough now (and it does seem to accelerate all by itself, if you put the evolution of species on a time scale) so that the "next step" (the superhuman beings) will emerge without any conscious and/or voluntary input from us?

I'm not saying this is certainly what's going to happen, it's just a (literal) what-if question.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#24

Post by baddox »

nkassis wrote: post #6
baddox wrote: post #3

Everything hinges on his belief: "I believe that it is impossible for human beings to create a human-equivalent artificial intelligence." I agree that it's difficult to give formal specifications for a "human-equivalent artificial intelligence," but assuming the human brain is an entirely physical object, why shouldn't we be able to at least theoretically create or simulate a computer system with as much complexity a…

I agree with you. Also, I don't believe humans aren't limited by the same issues that machines have. Halting problem comes to mind, nothing shows that humans aren't bound by it too. I believe (another belief ;p ) that theoretically machines can be as intelligent as human considering that were both bound by the same limits. But I'm no AI expert as my post will probably prove. IANAAIE

Are you suggesting that the human brain may be capable of non-Turing computing (hypercomputation)? I certainly don't agree with that.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#25

Post by Shorel »

The fact that any single human will not be able to understand how such AI works to the minimal detail, means nothing about the way such AI can be created.

For example: Evolutionary programming, Iterative design, Gödel Machines. All of them possible approaches.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#26

Post by FlorinAndrei »

nkassis wrote: post #6
baddox wrote: post #3

Everything hinges on his belief: "I believe that it is impossible for human beings to create a human-equivalent artificial intelligence." I agree that it's difficult to give formal specifications for a "human-equivalent artificial intelligence," but assuming the human brain is an entirely physical object, why shouldn't we be able to at least theoretically create or simulate a computer system with as much complexity a…

I agree with you. Also, I don't believe humans aren't limited by the same issues that machines have. Halting problem comes to mind, nothing shows that humans aren't bound by it too. I believe (another belief ;p ) that theoretically machines can be as intelligent as human considering that were both bound by the same limits. But I'm no AI expert as my post will probably prove. IANAAIE

> I don't believe humans aren't limited by the same issues that machines have. Halting problem comes to mind, nothing shows that humans aren't bound by it too.

Math has started, quite a while ago, to show that we are already probing some sort of inherent limits of knowledge for the human mind.

> theoretically machines can be as intelligent as human

Intelligence is the easy problem. It's just a function of complexity after all. It's consciousness / awareness that's harder, more important and more interesting.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#27

Post by houseabsolute »

I've never understood how one could be so sure about this. It seems to me all we need to program a human in a box is:

1. An atomic-level scan of a single human being.

2. A computer with program powerful enough to simulate all the atoms in a single human being and their interactions.

If you can get this, you have a computer as smart as a human (modulo quantum effects, if those do indeed play any part in cognition.

This would be a horribly inefficient way of doing it but I'd be very surprised if it were not possible to get a computer this fast in real life, or to conduct an approximated atomic level scan of a human being. It may not happen soon, but it would be truly shocking to me if it doesn't happen eventually, provided we do not destroy ourselves before reaching that technological level.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#28

Post by fhars »

What irks me most about the AI debates is that a machine that thinks like a human would actually be artificially delusional, not artificially intelligent. For true, strong AI all the SETI argumants apply: would such an intelligence resemble our own, or could it be so different that we wouldn't even recognize it?

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#30

Post by reynolds »

lionheart wrote: post #20

Here's why I disagree: smart human beings evolved from not-very-smart primates. That proves there is a natural process by which greater intelligence can be created. Therefore there is no reason that an even greater intelligence cannot be created with help from man. And for singularity's sake super-human intelligence doesn't even have to be an AI. Genetically-engineered super-intelligent primates would do the trick as…

The author's argument hinges on humans creating more intelligent AI, not humans genetically engineering beings capable of evolving greater intelligence than humans. I would also argue that humans engineering new species isn't exactly "natural" in an evolutionary sense. The author even points out that he isn't considering natural evolution in his argument.
Post reply on HN