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

Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 403 posts

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#321

Post by hutzlibu »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #296
chess_buster wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. The process is more than the operations. A computer is not just a playback machine like a mechanical loom.

A computer is not just a playback machine like a mechanical loom. What is it then? Magic? The fact that you don't understand how it works doesn't make it magical. Every program ever written for your desktop computer was ultimately "compiled" into a long series of simple binary logic operations that your computer blindly repeats at very high speed. For every set of inputs, it recreates the same output --- kinda like a…

A video player is just a static playback machine.

A computer is dynamic playback machine, which can change what "to play" and how to play it over time.

Indeed magic, for anyone who does not understand it.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#322

Post by rutherblood »

mcguire wrote: post #135
goatlover wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> humans are such machines. Humans are animals. Part of the paper defends the notion that a lot of human intelligence is tacit based on being embodied in the world as a living organism. The idea that humans are biological robots is only one that came about as metaphor when we created machines and some similarities were noted.

Are quadriplegic people "human"?

from what I understand being "embodied" doesn't necessarily imply movement, but I am afraid even I do not understand it fully to say a computer isn't and an animal is.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#323

Post by _8j50 »

abetusk wrote: post #131

Here is, to me, the relevant line: "Hubert Dreyfus, who argued that computers, who have no body, no childhood and no cultural practice, could not acquire intelligence at all. One of Dreyfus’ main arguments was that human knowledge is partly tacit, and therefore cannot be articulated and incorporated in a computer program. " I have not read the rest of the article but in the introduction it's stated: "The article furt…

Why does general AI have to be like human intelligence?

Free will might have something to do with it as well. Seld awareness is the basis of our desire to find our place in the world and the meaning of reality relative to self. This desire might be a core driver of human intelligence, the intial lack of purpose,self awareness and the need to survive by solving arbitrary problems is important as well.

Computers may not live in the real world but a virtual world of games, coupled with self aware program that trains subprograms to adopt and solve solutions to survive might be an interesting approach.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#324

Post by engineeringwoke »

krisoft wrote: post #313
engineeringwoke wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That quoted sentence argues that we do not have AGI now. I have no counterargument against that. We do not have AGI now. That sentence on the other hand fails to argue it is impossible to develop AGI. Someone before the invention of the aeroplane could have said: Our only known good model for flying is birds and insects. It took billions of years of the universe churning at random to accidentally generate birds and i…

Flight and consciousness are not in any way compareable concepts. We literally cannot perceive the constraints of the latter's underlying physical system.

Sometimes I feel computer scientists choose to misunderstand physicists because it would make them feel stupid if they did understand.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#325

Post by engineeringwoke »

cygx wrote: post #312
engineeringwoke wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Technological progress is many orders of magnitudes faster than evolutionary change; assuming the 'magic' of the brain is indeed in the neural circuity, hardware is expected to be powerful enough to simulate that on a timescale of O(100) years in the future instead of O(10e9). Of course, it's not a given that simulating connected neurons with action potentials or whatever is sufficient to capture the relevant feature…

This is a well-balanced take. Maybe we will see emergent properties at that scale. If that were the case, then we could catch enough of a glimpse of what is really happening...

But another part of me says that is silly. We had an expectation of what the Higgs was before we found it. Here, we are shooting in the dark.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#326

Post by vidarh »

3pt14159 wrote: post #209
vidarh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no requirement to "know a truth" to address the issue of free will. The starting point would be: Come up with a definition that does not devolve into infinite regression ("god did it", which just moves the question "up one plane" and so does not provide a solution) or smoke and mirrors (and illusion over determinism). If someone were to be able to form a cohesive definition that does not fall down one of tho…

> There is no requirement to "know a truth" to address the issue of free will. How can I believe this to be true if you haven't proven to me that a mind can know a truth yet? > The starting point would be: Come up with a definition that does not devolve into infinite regression ("god did it", which just moves the question "up one plane" and so does not provide a solution) or smoke and mirrors (and illusion over deter…

"Coming down on the other side of the argument" is to acknowledge that until someone has provided a definition of free will, there is no argument to come down on.

Talking about free will without first defining it is as meaningless as just waving your arms in the air.

That is why "knowing a truth" is not relevant to this question yet. Without even a hypothesis from "the other side" to address, whether or not we can "know a truth" makes no difference.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#327

Post by [deleted] »

baddox wrote: post #240
mindcrime wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can and absolutely have proven things to be impossible. What would you consider to be an example of that? And how does that square with the Problem of Induction which is the hole in our entire system of empirical knowledge generation?

You can’t make a Turing machine which can solve the halting problem or an algorithm which can determine whether any given mathematical statement is true.

[deleted]

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#328

Post by lone-commenter »

engineeringwoke wrote: post #308
simonh wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We don’t understand something. It’s a complicated phenomenon. So it’s impossible to replicate? I think the “argument” is so silly it doesn’t need to be disproved. If one wants to prove something impossible they’d better avoid logical fallacies. A priori we can’t say that it’s impossible, nor that it’s certainly doable.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#329

Post by vidarh »

jqpabc123 wrote: post #88
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.

There is quite a bit of evidence that your brain is analog, not digital. There is lots of evidence that it is both chemical and electrical in nature And while it is capable of logic, it does not rely strictly on any specific form of logic. In other words, the only working models we have for "intelligence" are nothing like the silicon binary switches we are attempting to use to replicate it.

You make the assumption that any computer we'd try to use to replicate it will inherently be digital and electronic. If we prove unable to replicate a brain this way, nothing is stopping us from using biochemical systems instead.

Analog computers exists, and we have used bio-mechanical systems for computation... Heck, the first "computers" were humans.

Getting hung up on the current preferred paradigm of computation as the only possible one is one of the biggest flaws of the article.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#330

Post by cygx »

engineeringwoke wrote: post #325
cygx wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technological progress is many orders of magnitudes faster than evolutionary change; assuming the 'magic' of the brain is indeed in the neural circuity, hardware is expected to be powerful enough to simulate that on a timescale of O(100) years in the future instead of O(10e9). Of course, it's not a given that simulating connected neurons with action potentials or whatever is sufficient to capture the relevant feature…

This is a well-balanced take. Maybe we will see emergent properties at that scale. If that were the case, then we could catch enough of a glimpse of what is really happening... But another part of me says that is silly. We had an expectation of what the Higgs was before we found it. Here, we are shooting in the dark.

We had an expectation of what the Higgs was before we found it.

However, the standard model (which formed the basis for the prediction of the Higgs boson) was created to bring order to the chaos of unexpected experimentally discovered particles. In the words of I.I. Rabi on the discovery of the muon, "who ordered that?"

Post reply on HN