Live data from Hacker News

Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

scienceblogs.com

21–30 of 227 posts

Re: Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow - that "What the Bleep..." does look remarkably bad. The trailer is Poe's Law in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7dhztBnpxg I guess you don't want to watch that again? ;-)

It is deadly dangerous for me to watch a clip from that film. It could inspire dozens of hours of rage-filled but closely-argued physics lectures. Given the slightest provocation, I will go all xkcd.com/386 on its ass and my actual career will die of neglect. Now, I need to go calm myself by fixing some bugs before I start to throw things. ;)

For what it's worth, I was having a conversation with my son (he's 11) about the key differences between scientific and religious beliefs - I think I'll use that film as an example of how it can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference - especially when people present what are essentially religious beliefs using terminology derived from science.

(NB I remember reading some Erich von Däniken books when I was 9 or 10 and getting awfully excited - I was quite upset when I found that people could just make stuff up and present it as science).

Re: Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

#22
post #4

This rant unfortunately fails to clearly demonstrate how Kurzweil errs. It goes on about complexity and emergence, but why would complex interactions not emerge from a computer simulation just as they do in the real biochemical system? Nevertheless, my gut feeling, too, is that Kurzweil is mistaken. I can't quite put a finger on it yet, but at least one problem I see is this: Kurzweil seems to suggest that the observ…

Another sleight of hand with that statement: Kurzweil's converting compressed data to lines of code, but humans don't write in high-entropy binary. So it's 800MB of code, not 50MB.

Re: Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

#23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow - that "What the Bleep..." does look remarkably bad. The trailer is Poe's Law in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7dhztBnpxg I guess you don't want to watch that again? ;-)

It is deadly dangerous for me to watch a clip from that film. It could inspire dozens of hours of rage-filled but closely-argued physics lectures. Given the slightest provocation, I will go all xkcd.com/386 on its ass and my actual career will die of neglect. Now, I need to go calm myself by fixing some bugs before I start to throw things. ;)

[deleted]

Re: Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

#24
post #4

This rant unfortunately fails to clearly demonstrate how Kurzweil errs. It goes on about complexity and emergence, but why would complex interactions not emerge from a computer simulation just as they do in the real biochemical system? Nevertheless, my gut feeling, too, is that Kurzweil is mistaken. I can't quite put a finger on it yet, but at least one problem I see is this: Kurzweil seems to suggest that the observ…

why would complex interactions not emerge from a computer simulation One answer is "They will, and surprisingly quickly. But they will be a completely different set of complex interactions than are observed in the real world, because of some roundoff error in the binary representation of the N th digit of some apparently unimportant constant. Unfortunately, because the system is complex, you'll probably spend the res…

If you wanted an exact simulation, the n-th digit is important. But if you just want some system where some other (possibly intelligent) behaviour emerges, the n-th digit is not important.

Re: Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

#25
post #4

This rant unfortunately fails to clearly demonstrate how Kurzweil errs. It goes on about complexity and emergence, but why would complex interactions not emerge from a computer simulation just as they do in the real biochemical system? Nevertheless, my gut feeling, too, is that Kurzweil is mistaken. I can't quite put a finger on it yet, but at least one problem I see is this: Kurzweil seems to suggest that the observ…

Another sleight of hand with that statement: Kurzweil's converting compressed data to lines of code, but humans don't write in high-entropy binary. So it's 800MB of code, not 50MB.

Just look at compressed source code, too.

Re: Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

#26

I don't find these criticisms convincing. We haven't solved the protein folding problem? So solve it. Is there some reason to believe it won't ever be solved? If you had a sufficiently accurate simulation of a cell or organism (which we don't, but we might someday), you could do experiments on it much cheaper and faster than in a lab. I do agree that there's no freakin' way this will be done in ten years, or in the 6…

> We haven't solved the protein folding problem? So solve it.

You sir, are a genius. To make up for my previous lack of initiative, I will do so immediately. Please arrange for the world to be ready for my announcement of the solution at noon tomorrow.

Re: Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

#27
post #12
post #4

This rant unfortunately fails to clearly demonstrate how Kurzweil errs. It goes on about complexity and emergence, but why would complex interactions not emerge from a computer simulation just as they do in the real biochemical system? Nevertheless, my gut feeling, too, is that Kurzweil is mistaken. I can't quite put a finger on it yet, but at least one problem I see is this: Kurzweil seems to suggest that the observ…

I think his point that the genome is not the program but the data was very demonstrative. If you're a computer guy, you should clearly understand what his fundamental disagreement with Kurzweil is about.

Actually I didn't find that very enlightening at all. Code or data - I'd say it's both, depending on your perspective. You need those instructions to build your proteins, after all. It's very lispy ;)

The point is, he seems to suggest that the genome is all you need, when clearly that's not true.

Re: Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

#28
post #4

This rant unfortunately fails to clearly demonstrate how Kurzweil errs. It goes on about complexity and emergence, but why would complex interactions not emerge from a computer simulation just as they do in the real biochemical system? Nevertheless, my gut feeling, too, is that Kurzweil is mistaken. I can't quite put a finger on it yet, but at least one problem I see is this: Kurzweil seems to suggest that the observ…

Another sleight of hand with that statement: Kurzweil's converting compressed data to lines of code, but humans don't write in high-entropy binary. So it's 800MB of code, not 50MB.

Not only that: it may be "only" 800 MB of code, but we have no access to the CPU it runs on.

Re: Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

#29
Myers is attacking Kurzweil on the assumption that Kurzweil is actually proposing that the brain's structure should be reverse-engineesed from DNA, which would be intractably hard. Only Kurzweil isn't saying this anywhere. Instead, he seems to be using DNA as a measure for the amount of irreducible complexity that needs to go into a system that will end up with the complexity of a human brain.

Basically, we have no idea where we will get the AI source code we can actually do something with, but we have some reason to believe that the most concise version of the source code won't contain more data than the human genome.

The rough intuition might be if we wanted to simulate brain in the caricatured reverse-engineer-the-DNA way, we'd need an impossible computer that could simulate years worth of exact quantum-level physics in a cubic meter of space, but the human DNA and basic cellular machinery for hosting it would be the only seriously difficult bits to stick in there, the rest would just be simple chemicals and the impossibly detailed physics simulation.

I guess the analogy then is that we make the AI source code (which we don't know how to write yet), which is supposed to end up at most around the length of a human DNA, but which can run sensibly in existing hardware. Then, deterministic processing entirely unlike the immensely difficult-to-compute protein folding from DNA will make this code instantiate a working AI somewhere at the level of a newborn human baby, in the same way as the genome initiates protein-folding based processes that makes a single cell grow into a human baby given little more than nutrients and shelter from the external physical environment.

So it doesn't seem like a really strong statement of overoptimism. It's basically just saying that the human brain doesn't seem to require a mystifyingly immense amount of initial information to form, but instead something that can be quantified and very roughly compared with already existing software projects. I'd still guess it might take a little more than the ten years to come up with any sensible code with hope of growing into an AI though.

Re: Ray Kurzweil does not understand the brain

#30
post #4

This rant unfortunately fails to clearly demonstrate how Kurzweil errs. It goes on about complexity and emergence, but why would complex interactions not emerge from a computer simulation just as they do in the real biochemical system? Nevertheless, my gut feeling, too, is that Kurzweil is mistaken. I can't quite put a finger on it yet, but at least one problem I see is this: Kurzweil seems to suggest that the observ…

This rant unfortunately fails to clearly demonstrate how Kurzweil errs. It goes on about complexity and emergence, but why would complex interactions not emerge from a computer simulation just as they do in the real biochemical system?

Because so far, despite the best efforts of many geniuses and heroic computing resources, our simulations don't even reliably predict the real-world outcomes of far, far simpler systems. Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for demonstrating that sufficiently complex systems display emergent behaviors that can never be entirely predicted by studying their components in isolation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine#The_End_of_Certa...

Kurzweil is hopelessly out of his depth in these arguments and is talking nonsense. Personally I'll be very surprised if we can construct anything approaching human intelligence in my lifetime.

Post reply on HN