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

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#371

Post by theptip » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

dane-pgp wrote: post #215

godelski wrote: post #129

Embodiment being a killer feature for AGI seems weird to me. Not only is "what is a body" vague, but it is entirely possible to build a body. So why would it prevent AGI? We do know that embodiment is a sufficient condition for general intelligence: if we assume humans have general intelligence then it is clearly a sufficient condition. But the question of necessary is more interesting because we have to actually ask…

> We do know that embodiment is a sufficient condition for general intelligence: if we assume humans have general intelligence then it is clearly a sufficient condition. I'm not sure what you mean by "sufficient condition" here. Consider: "We do know that having a moustache is a sufficient condition for general intelligence: if we assume moustachioed humans have general intelligence then it is clearly a sufficient co…

It’s philosophical/logical jargon referring to whether one event causes another:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

You’re rightly confused because the GP formulated a non-sequitur. Embodiment is if anything a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the human brain to develop intelligence. It’s not a sufficient condition on its own for general intelligence; cats are embodied too.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#372

Post by 29athrowaway » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

glenstein wrote: post #358

29athrowaway wrote: post #236

To better understand the brain, you have to not only talk about its cognitive functions, but all of it. Then you will understand what it is really for. Your body stays alive by keeping levels within certain range. There are many functions in your body that have as an objective controlling those levels and your brain controls them at different levels of automation. Like your heart rate, sweating, urine output, etc. Bu…

>But not everything can be automated, because some situations are more complex This is where you lost me. You are very right that brains do all kinds of things to regulate the body that we don't usually think of as influencing thought. But we can't model those because they're too complex? I don't think environmental variables are too complex. But (1) if those are important, we can model them too and (2) it may be tha…

Not all decision making is rational.

If you are in the jungle and a lion comes at you, you will not have time to sit down and think what to do, and your brain is prepared to act in those situations as well.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#373

Post by dwaltrip » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

rutherblood wrote: post #341

dwaltrip wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t beat around the bush. Are you implying life is supernaturally sustained? That would be quite the claim. If not, then the history of science strongly suggests we can eventually learn the mechanisms of life and intelligence and then find a way to imperfectly yet sufficiently reimplement them.

let's say he believes that. even then his belief would be as understandable & justifiable as yours. Wagging a finger and saying history of science suggest this and that is just that, belief. Just because something happened before you think it'll happen again and again. I do sympathize with your pov and even agree with it, but let's not beat around the bush as you say and let's just call this what our povs are: faith…

I very strongly disagree that we can't label some beliefs as more compelling and reflective of reality than others.

I am happy to admit that doing a good job of differentiating is tricky business indeed, and that we all make many blatant errors and are prone to developing distorted ways of seeing things.

Nonetheless, I do believe that humanity has acquired some real understanding of the world and will continue to do so.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#374

Post by dwaltrip » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

jqpabc123 wrote: post #310

dwaltrip wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok, fair enough. I was pushing back so strongly as it seemed you might have been implying that there is a certain "magic" we can never investigate or understand, which I find to be a very unjustified and regressive position.

Much of our progress in medicine, science, and technology has been made due to the idea that the world around operates in an orderly fashion and can be investigated and understood.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#375

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

codr7 wrote: post #336

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #167

This is possibly the worst article I have ever seen in Nature. It is barely at the level of an undergraduate essay on AI (or AGI or ANI, as the author prefers). A hand-waving argument about "computers not being in the world" that relies on not bothering to define "computers", "being in" or "the world". Convenient avoidance of almost every more subtle anti-Searle/anti-Dreyfus critic (notably Dennett). Almost wilfull n…

You're demanding that they exactly define what can't be exactly defined, and it's not going to happen ever. We're probably going to get closer and closer, but in the end we're still observing ourselves and reality from the inside. I believe the goal of the article was to describe the differences between computers and humans, from the viewpoint of humans. What seems to be more popular these days is to start from the v…

I'm not demanding that they are successful at "defining what can't be exactly defined". I would just like them to make an effort to do so.

The author's whole claims about "being in the world" and "tacit knowledege" are quite amenable to further, useful definition and expansion. For example, do they mean by "tacit" "not subject to an implementation in a way that could include an electronic digital computing device?" Or do they mean "not subject to explication by the human that carries said knowledge" ? By "being in the world" do they mean being a causal object or is merely being subject to the behavior of other causal objects sufficient? There are so many dimensions to both of these central concepts, and yet the author barely explores them at all.

The author also makes no effort to differentiate between computers and robots, even when such a distinction seems quite important if you're going to make claims about "being in the world".

The stated goal of the article was to show "Why General Artificial Intelligence will not be realized".

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#376

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

juliangamble wrote: post #250

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #167

This is possibly the worst article I have ever seen in Nature. It is barely at the level of an undergraduate essay on AI (or AGI or ANI, as the author prefers). A hand-waving argument about "computers not being in the world" that relies on not bothering to define "computers", "being in" or "the world". Convenient avoidance of almost every more subtle anti-Searle/anti-Dreyfus critic (notably Dennett). Almost wilfull n…

Not disagreeing with this. Does anyone have a reasonable article or book making this point (for or against) that is well-researched and argued?

There are so many great books on theory of mind, consciousness, embodied intelligence, and general/strong AI that it's hard to know where to begin.

For me, even though it is somewhat old at this point (e.g. definitely no big-data/ML approaches even considered) would be the anthology "The Mind's I" edited and annotated by Dennett and Hofstadter. It's not going to directly rebut this author's point, but definitely gives a deep and rounded overview of many of the issues involved in thinking about computers and minds as somehow related to each other.

But there are many, many others, almost any of which will be better than this article.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#377

Post by rutherblood » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

Unlike most of the comments here, i'd say i am at the very least sympathetic to the views in this article. But even I have to say, this is a badly written paper. A whole lot of talking, various anecdotes and quotes but nothing to show for. This is just finger-wagging...never is any light thrown upon this mysterious "being embodied in the world" and somehow out of the blue a discussion on causality's importance in cognition comes about and fizzles out without having said anything of substance

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#378

Post by codr7 » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 8:12 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #375

codr7 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're demanding that they exactly define what can't be exactly defined, and it's not going to happen ever. We're probably going to get closer and closer, but in the end we're still observing ourselves and reality from the inside. I believe the goal of the article was to describe the differences between computers and humans, from the viewpoint of humans. What seems to be more popular these days is to start from the v…

I'm not demanding that they are successful at "defining what can't be exactly defined". I would just like them to make an effort to do so. The author's whole claims about "being in the world" and "tacit knowledege" are quite amenable to further, useful definition and expansion. For example, do they mean by "tacit" "not subject to an implementation in a way that could include an electronic digital computing device?" O…

Ok, so show me a robot that has any clue how to ride a bike from observing others trying.

And it's not going to happen, because we're not there yet.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#379

Post by simonh » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 8:35 PM UTC

lone-commenter wrote: post #328

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…

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.

Except that like flight it’s already been done - by evolution. I’m very confident that people will be ‘proving’ that it’s impossible like this article, right up to the day we actually do it.

Re: Why general artificial intelligence will not be realized

#380

Post by 3pt14159 » Sat, Jul 11, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #326

3pt14159 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 "k…

In my original comment I defined free will from my perspective.

> For me, the definition of free will is action outside of the constraint of fate.

Either every action of an individual is predetermined or it isn't. I'm not talking about the causal mechanisms of non-predetermined action (i.e., I'm not saying quantum probability / wave form collapse means someone has free will) I'm simply giving a definition that I think suffices for me.

Though even if this definition seems nonsensical to you, I still wouldn't budge from my core argument because it's impossible to resolve any philosophical debate without first resolving epistemological gaps.