I am a profoundly disabled person, unable to do very many things physically. I guess they've shown that my intelligence will never be general.
You’re an instance of a class. The class is where intelligence emerged.
Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
301–310 of 403 posts
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#302Given the epic title I was pretty unimpressed by this line of thinking. The argument seems to rely on (among other things) certain presumed implications of “Computers not inhabiting the world” - a comical line of reasoning that cites a lack of a childhood among other absurd reasons for why computers can’t be intelligent. The author assumes that intelligence can only be derived from experiencing the world in full... w…
> Secondly it seems plausible that a person locked in a room with a radio to communicate with the outside world would eventually acquire intelligence without ever fully experiencing the world. I'm not sure about that. A person locked in a room with a radio would probably go crazy or recess into some primitive mental state. Also, the article specifically claims that General Intelligence has this requirement of embodim…
>A person locked in a room with a radio would probably go crazy or recess into some primitive mental state.
Hellen Keller managed to do well without vision or hearing.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
To claim otherwise is to claim that there is some barrier beyond which scientific inquiry is not allowed to cross or is incapable of crossing. The epistemological status of such a claim is roughly equivalent to explaining something about the Universe by saying "it's because God did it."
No. It is not necessarily a claim that it can't be crossed, it is a claim that we currently lack the knowledge and resources needed to cross it.
We haven't figured out how to travel faster than the speed of light. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done. But we currently lack the knowledge and resources needed to do it.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I've read the whole article.) I don't think the author makes a strong argument, and I disagree with their conclusion. But the author's argument actually appears to be mostly that science itself is insufficient to understand the world. This argument is outlined in the section starting "But the replacement of our everyday world by the world of science is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Edmund Husserl was one…
Again, I think you're giving the author the benefit of the doubt when it's not warranted. Your paraphrasing "science itself is insufficient to understand the world" is code for dualism. I forgot to add the reference in the comment above but tacit means what I said it meant. I quoted directly from Wiktionary [1]. I'll do so again here: Adjective tacit (comparative more tacit, superlative most tacit) 1. Expressed in si…
I don't have any strong opinion about if the author is a proponent of dualism. I'd note that Quantum Bayesianism[1][2] (discussed the other day on HN) seems much more mystical than this, and yet is usually considered within the realms of science.
I build neural networks in my day job. They encode tacit information because they are "based on induction rather than deduction". But that's not anything mystical - it's just learning from data, and it's not a dog whistle towards mysticism either.
[1] https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained...
[2] "For this reason, some philosophers of science have deemed QBism a form of anti-realism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#305I came to this article expecting a logical proof of why AI was impossible, but instead found the following tautological argument: hard AI, which I define as intelligence with tacit knowledge, which in turn I define as knowledge that cannot be ran in algorithms, is impossible to be ran in algorithms. Disappointing. My counterpoint: is there anything that cannot be ran in algorithms? The way I see it the only thing sto…
> is there anything that cannot be ran in algorithms? The way I see it the only thing stopping me from simulating every atom in a brain is computational power. I am not for sure I understand the specifics of what you mean by "is there anything that cannot be ran in algorithms?", but there are plenty of things that are not computable or decidable in computation. These are theoretical constraints. There are also practi…
Sorry, my sentence was poorly formulated, and your counterpoint is attractive. Let me try it again:
Is there any portion of reality that cannot have the evolution of its set of magnitudes replicated in a Turing Machine?
> there are plenty of things that are not computable
I clicked on the article expecting to see something like a mapping between aspects of human intelligence and undecidability or the halting problem.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Church-Turing thesis is: "Every effectively calculable function is a computable function" [1] The definition is a little terse so we have to expand on what "effectively calculable function" and "computable function" mean. By a "computable function", we mean a Turing machine. The term "effectively calculable function" is a little unclear but one definition that I think is the closest to the intent is "it can be do…
"That is, the physical world, including human cognition, can be realized by a Turing machine." How did you get to the conclusion that all physical world is computable? Rather a huge jump i would say. Sure some things are, but "all of it" would rather be a BIG assumption. Physical theories of the world are limited to our current state of observations and knowledge of the world, they AREN'T the actual world. Who is to…
How did you get to the conclusion that all physical world is computable?
That’s not the conclusion, that’s the whole thesis. The whole point of it is that yes, it’s not provable, but so far we haven’t seen anything to suggest the contrary. All of our current physical theories are very much computable, for example.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Life in general and your brain in particular may very well be more than "just chemistry". We really don't know. What we do know at this point is that no amount of "just chemistry" has ever managed to create even the most rudimentary form of "life" from inert chemicals. And the only working models we have for "intelligence" at this point are inextricably bound to life.
No amount of "just chemistry" has yet managed to create... Keep in mind that no amount of rocketeering has ever put a man on Mars, but that hardly constitutes a proof, or even serious evidence, that it is impossible. Arguments from ignorance are a terrible thing.
Stating that it has yet to be done is a fact --- and facts are not ignorance
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Computers can’t heal themselves. Our bodies do that on their own without conscious prompting. Humans evolve the complexity of a computers electron states, not the computers own inherent properties. My use doesn’t force transistors to evolve into better transistors. It has no self regeneration. You don’t see the issue in principle but here you have an article by an expert pointing them out. Perhaps be a better listene…
This is exactly the sort of conflation of completely unrelated concepts as I found in the article. What on Earth has healing got to do with reasoning? You even say our bodies do it without conscious prompting, in other words it’s a completely irrelevant issue. Yes computers aren’t biological, they aren’t life, but so what? Why does that constrain their ability to interact with and learn from the world? AGI is defined…
For all the pontificating about souls as a means to discredit OP's beliefs, you all seem to avoid this statement:
> Our only known good model for a machine that can create our consciousness is us. It took billions of years of the universe churning at random to accidentally generate us. We have no clue how to replicate that scale.
Would you please provide a counterargument? Do you understand how difficult this really is? We can't even comprehend the physical constraints.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting life is supernaturally sustained? No. I am simply suggesting that creating life (and intelligence) from inert materals may involve more than "just chemistry". In the same way that lead can not be turned into gold by "just chemistry". I welcome knowledge and proof to the contrary but thus far, there is none.
We have lots of evidence of how the processes of life are chemically driven: Photosynthesis captures energy from sunlight, metabolism of sugars produces ATP which is then used in a variety of ways by the cell's proteins, the DNA->RNA->Protein pipeline builds proteins from the sequences of base pairs stored in a cell's DNA, and DNA copying enzymes pass that information from generation to generation. Since you probably…
What sort of discovery would count as "proof" to you?
The ultimate proof is actually doing it. Start with nothing but inert materials and produce a new, unique form of living organism using "just chemistry".
I'm not saying it can't be done, I am saying that thus far, it hasn't been done. And the reason it hasn't been done might be because "just chemistry" is an overly simplistic description of what is needed to actually achieve it.
But feel free to prove me wrong.
Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting life is supernaturally sustained? No. I am simply suggesting that creating life (and intelligence) from inert materals may involve more than "just chemistry". In the same way that lead can not be turned into gold by "just chemistry". I welcome knowledge and proof to the contrary but thus far, there is none.
Gold can be made from lead (and other inputs) using knowledge that is generally classified as nuclear physics. It’s not very practical or economical, so no one does it — but it can be done. It’s true that this isn’t “chemistry”. Not sure if you were making a deeper point. Perhaps to truly understand life we need to look deeply at physics, geology, fluid dynamics, and many other specialized fields, in addition to chem…
The only deeper point is that labeling it "just chemistry" may be a gross over simplification of what is required to actually achieve it.