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

Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence

insidescience.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 145 posts

Re: Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence

#41

Post by phillmv »

Steuard wrote: post #27

I haven't read the original paper, but (speaking as a physicist) I'm always skeptical when physicists leap into extremely different disciplines and claim to have a grand insight that its specialists have never considered before. It could always be true: physics really does have a lot to contribute in many areas! But the burden of proof is very, very much on the physicists to justify the relevance of their approach. I…

It sounds like crazy nonsense but there's just enough in it to sound crazy awesome.

I've got like, an undergraduate understanding of how this works. Does anyone have a link to an ungated copy?

Re: Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence

#42

Post by alexwg »

phillmv wrote: post #41
Steuard wrote: post #27

I haven't read the original paper, but (speaking as a physicist) I'm always skeptical when physicists leap into extremely different disciplines and claim to have a grand insight that its specialists have never considered before. It could always be true: physics really does have a lot to contribute in many areas! But the burden of proof is very, very much on the physicists to justify the relevance of their approach. I…

It sounds like crazy nonsense but there's just enough in it to sound crazy awesome. I've got like, an undergraduate understanding of how this works. Does anyone have a link to an ungated copy?

Yes: http://alexwg.org/

Re: Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence

#43

Post by wavesounds »

jinfiesto wrote: post #39
wavesounds wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed "My proposal is that intelligence is a process that attempts to capture future histories" 'future histories' is just ... the future! .... so his great proposal is 'intelligence predicts the future'? Well duh!

Errr no. His proposal is that intelligence is a process that maximizes the number of available future histories. Just capturing future histories is meaningless. The example he gives of an upright rod clearly illustrates the difference. Really what he's saying is that intelligence seeks to maintain maximum possibilities for the future.

He just set a goal of keeping the potential energy maximized for the rod, just like a big blue set a goal of winning at chess 30 years ago, both by 'predicting the future'.

I don't see anything new here except the phrase 'future histories' which is not even defined because it just means 'the future'.

As soon as I saw it claiming it can win at the stock market I knew it was BS.

Re: Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence

#44

Post by charlieflowers »

If this is a new piece of scientific research, why is there already product marketing around it? The website has named the product "Entropica", and has a demo video that is (while interesting) pure marketing.

New research ideas do not typically come packaged as a product for sale.

Re: Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence

#45

Post by brg »

coldtea wrote: post #36
Steuard wrote: post #27

I haven't read the original paper, but (speaking as a physicist) I'm always skeptical when physicists leap into extremely different disciplines and claim to have a grand insight that its specialists have never considered before. It could always be true: physics really does have a lot to contribute in many areas! But the burden of proof is very, very much on the physicists to justify the relevance of their approach. I…

> I haven't read the original paper, but (speaking as a physicist) I'm always skeptical when physicists leap into extremely different disciplines and claim to have a grand insight that its specialists have never considered before. That's bad, because the most interesting breakthroughs came from cross-disciplinary work.

I'm curious as to the basis of your statement. I believe the opposite to be true. Gene theory, the general theory, anti-biotics, the structure of DNA, the function of neurons, and the transistor all came from specialists. Is it not the rare breakthrough that comes from cross-disciplinary work?

The cross-disciplinary breakthrough is often characterized as unifying, and hence rightfully celebrated. But they are neither the norm nor the most influential.

Re: Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence

#46

Post by aethertap »

coldtea wrote: post #36
Steuard wrote: post #27

I haven't read the original paper, but (speaking as a physicist) I'm always skeptical when physicists leap into extremely different disciplines and claim to have a grand insight that its specialists have never considered before. It could always be true: physics really does have a lot to contribute in many areas! But the burden of proof is very, very much on the physicists to justify the relevance of their approach. I…

> I haven't read the original paper, but (speaking as a physicist) I'm always skeptical when physicists leap into extremely different disciplines and claim to have a grand insight that its specialists have never considered before. That's bad, because the most interesting breakthroughs came from cross-disciplinary work.

> That's bad, because the most interesting breakthroughs came from cross-disciplinary work.

True, but I think the signal-to-noise ratio is also exceptionally low. The most amazing breakthroughs come from insights that span disciplines, but it's also easy to think you have an insight when what you really have is a mistake. I'm not weighing in on this one in particular, but as a general principle I think caution is appropriate in cases like this.

Re: Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence

#47

Post by andrewflnr »

patcon wrote: post #23
technotony wrote: post #7

This is fascinating. It proposes that intelligence is about maximizing the control we have over future events, ie maximize the entropy of the system. Intuitively this aligns well with how I think about many strategic options or inflections in life/business - you try to take the path which maximizes future options. Lots of interesting applications, will be interested to see how well they manage to communicate this wor…

I think it's about trying to minimize entropy (disorder) of the system. Maximum entropy is maximum disorder (which the universe tends toward naturally), such as when the pendulum hangs below the cart without any intervention.

Well, the abstract of the actual paper (linked up-thread) uses the phrase "entropy maximization". I still don't understand entropy after taking a physics class on it, but I did gather it's more complicated than "order" vs "disorder" in any intuitive sense.

Re: Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence

#49

Post by thibauts »

coldtea wrote: post #36
Steuard wrote: post #27

I haven't read the original paper, but (speaking as a physicist) I'm always skeptical when physicists leap into extremely different disciplines and claim to have a grand insight that its specialists have never considered before. It could always be true: physics really does have a lot to contribute in many areas! But the burden of proof is very, very much on the physicists to justify the relevance of their approach. I…

> I haven't read the original paper, but (speaking as a physicist) I'm always skeptical when physicists leap into extremely different disciplines and claim to have a grand insight that its specialists have never considered before. That's bad, because the most interesting breakthroughs came from cross-disciplinary work.

Most likely, an unifying framework of nature would come from cross-disciplinary work. That's almost a tautology. Unfortunately we're stuck in a world where isolated people playing with narrow albeit very detailed views of nature, try to capture the big picture all on their own.

I'm glad physicists can try their luck at AI. I'd be glad other disciplines, even remote, do too. Foreign concepts often bring with them new outlooks on problems that are very fertile and rejuvenating. A little bit more humility wouldn't hurt though.

Re: Physicist proposes new way to think about intelligence

#50

Post by svachalek »

wavesounds wrote: post #43
jinfiesto wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Errr no. His proposal is that intelligence is a process that maximizes the number of available future histories. Just capturing future histories is meaningless. The example he gives of an upright rod clearly illustrates the difference. Really what he's saying is that intelligence seeks to maintain maximum possibilities for the future.

He just set a goal of keeping the potential energy maximized for the rod, just like a big blue set a goal of winning at chess 30 years ago, both by 'predicting the future'. I don't see anything new here except the phrase 'future histories' which is not even defined because it just means 'the future'. As soon as I saw it claiming it can win at the stock market I knew it was BS.

It's not "predicting" the future, it's "maximizing" the number of potential futures. In chess, the more moves you have available the better you are doing, generally. But another measure (probably better although I'm not a chess expert) is how few moves your opponent has available. Strictly speaking it sounds like this strategy would emphasize keeping future moves available for both you and your opponent. This is a more idealistic future for many real-world situations but I'm not sure I'd call it the definition of "intelligence".
Post reply on HN