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

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#31

Post by stcredzero »

tbrownaw wrote: post #18
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…

Deeper than that, everything hinges on defining intelligence as what is solvable/not solvable in theory given infinite resources (time etc). So any process that can blindly enumerate all solutions to a problem (no matter how often some wrong solutions might be repeated) is just as "intelligent" as if it could solve the problem in constant or log* or whatever time. This has the interesting result of us being by defini…

Clearly, a practical definition of intelligence needs to include time. Otherwise, any problem whose solution can be described as a number and quickly checked could eventually be solved by a counter.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#32

Post by klodolph »

This essay makes asserts that, for example, a human could never write a chess program that is better at playing chess than the human is, because the human could always just run the chess program by hand, given time.

This is like saying that no computer is more powerful than any other computer, given sufficient storage and time. But limits on storage and time are THE limits. This is a very poor way to define "power".

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#33

Post by stcredzero »

ck2 wrote: post #14

In 100 years we will have gobs of massively parallel computing power in the size of today's cellphones. Even badly written code will be able to execute at speeds we can't fathom today. Every dot in an image will be able to be analyzed in milliseconds, matched to terabytes of stored patterns. Every sound wave in a voice analyzed by the same massive amount of power and patterns. We may not have "real" AI in 100 years l…

Even badly written code will be able to execute at speeds we can't fathom today.

Exponential complexity is still going to swamp available computing power for large enough N. N will be larger, though, and that will open up new uses.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#34

Post by johngalt »

Guide to create General AI:

1. Figure out what the brain does chemically to create thought.

2. Replicate that function electronically.

Responses to his objections about complexity greater than ourselves: If we can't create something smarter than ourselves, then how did amoeba do it? If you can figure out step #1 then you can also diff a smart brain vs a dumb one. Take whatever makes a brain smarter and double it in step #2.

IMHO hardware's not the problem. It's reverse engineering the software our brains use. I expect when we figure this out, we'll be suprised how simple we really are.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#35

Post by megaman821 »

For practical purposes what does it matter? He is basically saying if humans cannot comprehend something like the fifth dimension then we couldn't build an AI that could either. So what.

I do believe humans could build a fusion reactor so a computer with expert level knowledge in all areas related to fusion reactors could build one thousands of times faster that it would take a human to do. So anything you think a human could do a high-level AI could do dramatically faster. So even if the AI could never construct something smarter than itself, it could make something faster, and in turn that AI could make one even faster. That is the singularity.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#36

Post by raimondious »

FlorinAndrei wrote: post #11
btilly wrote: post #10

Someone clearly didn't read Godel, Escher, Bach . I've long pointed out that human brains are far more complex than computers. However given Moore's law it seems likely that somewhere in the 2015-2030 range (depending on how one defines the complexity of a neuron), computers will be a match for human brains in complexity. At some point after that happens I expect human level AI to appear. The growing power of statist…

Complexity is easy. Just wait long enough. It's consciousness that's harder to contemplate.

Right — it's impossible to perfectly simulate something we don't even understand in physical terms (we can only simulate what we think it's doing). Though it's debatable whether artificial consciousness is needed for human-level artificial intelligence. Intelligence is just one aspect of the brain.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#37

Post by johngalt »

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…

Even if that were true, we could still see rather drastic advances emulating intelligence far below the capability of humans.

Imagine if we could program a self replicating machine group similar to an ant colony? Self propagating, powering, healing. Any excess resources the colony has goes into building our houses, growing our food, building cars etc...

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#38

Post by thefool »

growingconcern wrote: post #23

What a ridiculous argument (something of a given intelligence can not possibly create something more intelligent)! It's kind of like saying no one who can only run at 15 miles per hour could ever create something that can go faster than 15 miles per hour.

The given enough time part is the logical flaw i think.

It's kinda like saying that a man who can only run 15 miles per hour will eventually be able to run 30 miles and thus even if he creates a machine to do it faster, he was still capable of doing it.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#39

Post by nkassis »

baddox wrote: post #24
nkassis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

not sure about hypercomputation but Godel did try to prove that humans had intuition something that would allow them to somehow go beyond the limitation of his incompleteness theorem. Of course he did go crazy thinking about all this and he never did finish his proof about intuition. I personally don't believe it's possible. Humans are as limited as machines.

Re: Why there will never be human-equivalent AI

#40

Post by dododo »

i don't understand why "intelligence"/"smart" is a good thing to optimise/aim for:

1. it's not a well defined quantity.

2. under any definition, it doesn't seem to be anything useful in itself.

can some entity create an entity better at a task that the creator? obviously yes. c.f., compilers, factories, cranes, &c.

Post reply on HN