Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized • Hacker News Board

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#31

Post by enitihas » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #21

Any article making such a claim need to start with explaining what evidence they have that human brains are not computing devices that can be replicated or simulated. Because absent evidence that there is something fundamental preventing us from one day copying the structure of a human brain and ending up with a working device, whatever claims they make are hand-waving.

I think you missed the main point, replicated economically. Given unlimited budget, I think simulating the human brain might be possible if one could use a powerful enough computer for evey neuron.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#32

Post by bena » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

jupp0r wrote: post #8

jqpabc123 wrote: post #3

It is difficult to build/create something you don't understand. A computer is just a playback machine for binary logic. We know that "intelligence" can create binary logic. We don't know if binary logic can create "intelligence". Claims that it is possible are really more "religious" than scientific at this point.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In light of our limited understanding of how the brain works, claiming it is not possible to recreate its functions inside a computer programming is a much stronger claim than to assume that it’s possible and we just don’t know how. Unless we see a mathematical proof that it’s impossible, I think people who claim that it’s impossible are the same as people who clai…

This is just flipping the burden of proof around. What is your proof that it can be done? "But planes" is not proof.

I'm of the opinion that we don't even know what questions we are trying to answer.

What is intelligence? What is consciousness?

Can you explain them in concrete terms that are acceptable to everyone and don't have any notable exceptions? That's going to be the first step to being anywhere close to realizing general a.i..

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#33

Post by vidarh » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

joefourier wrote: post #23

This article seems to be yet another long-winded attempt to say that human beings have some sort of "soul" or "vital essence" that computers don't, but since those ideas are out of vogue, it uses obfuscated language to make the same point without explicitly saying it. See: > which have allegedly shown that our decisions are not the result of “some mysterious free will”, but the result of “millions of neurons calculat…

It always mystifies me to what extent people insist on trying to hold on to this fantasy of free will, while remaining unable to define free will in a way that does not devolve to "magic" or some attempt to obscure a deterministic description behind smoke and mirrors.

At least some of the latter (e.g. a portion of compatibilists etc.) will if pressed admit that their "free will" is an effect or illusion of mind layered on top of determinism, but for a lot of people the very idea that they don't have actual agency seems entirely impossible to accept.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#34

Post by sobellian » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

jqpabc123 wrote: post #3

It is difficult to build/create something you don't understand. A computer is just a playback machine for binary logic. We know that "intelligence" can create binary logic. We don't know if binary logic can create "intelligence". Claims that it is possible are really more "religious" than scientific at this point.

Is your problem digital logic? Analog computers predate digital computers. I doubt that's the sticking point but if it is, it's not an impossible hurdle.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#35

Post by blacksqr » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:24 PM UTC

Author of linked article asserts that computers cannot achieve general intelligence by: redefining general intelligence as precisely and only the specific experience and behavior of human beings.

Author has incorporated the argument's conclusion into its premise, a tautology.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#36

Post by csours » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:24 PM UTC

Is there a strong argument against the fact that every approach to AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) eventually becomes ANI (Artificial Narrow Intelligence)?

In other words, as soon as a facet of AI (NLP etc) gets a specific name and context, it is no longer considered part of AGI.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#37

Post by cheez » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

joefourier wrote: post #23

This article seems to be yet another long-winded attempt to say that human beings have some sort of "soul" or "vital essence" that computers don't, but since those ideas are out of vogue, it uses obfuscated language to make the same point without explicitly saying it. See: > which have allegedly shown that our decisions are not the result of “some mysterious free will”, but the result of “millions of neurons calculat…

There's no trouble, we don't know everything. We default to assuming there is nothing we can't explain, doesn't mean that assumption is truth. Our job is to keep pounding the universe for truths until it gives them up.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#38

Post by hutzlibu » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:25 PM UTC

quibbler wrote: post #13

jqpabc123 wrote: post #3

It is difficult to build/create something you don't understand. A computer is just a playback machine for binary logic. We know that "intelligence" can create binary logic. We don't know if binary logic can create "intelligence". Claims that it is possible are really more "religious" than scientific at this point.

We know that machines with AGI are possible - humans are such machines. Maybe you could discuss whether classical computers could achieve AGI, but I think overall the quest is to build machines with AGI, not necessarily in the form of classical computers.

"We know that machines with AGI are possible - humans are such machines."

I believe, it is disputed, whether humans are just machines. But it is mostly a matter of definition, I believe.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#39

Post by lurquer » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #21

Any article making such a claim need to start with explaining what evidence they have that human brains are not computing devices that can be replicated or simulated. Because absent evidence that there is something fundamental preventing us from one day copying the structure of a human brain and ending up with a working device, whatever claims they make are hand-waving.

>Any article making such a claim need to start with explaining what evidence they have that human brains are not computing devices that can be replicated or simulated.

If X and Y appear dissimilar, the burden of proof is on he who would argue they are similar.

If one contends a brain and a computer and the functions of each appear similar, then one is being disingenuous.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#40

Post by blablabla123 » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 5:27 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #21

Any article making such a claim need to start with explaining what evidence they have that human brains are not computing devices that can be replicated or simulated. Because absent evidence that there is something fundamental preventing us from one day copying the structure of a human brain and ending up with a working device, whatever claims they make are hand-waving.

The Halting Problem definitely puts bounds on what an algorithm can know about another one. At least this should backup the empirical evidence why analytical approaches haven't gotten so far yet.