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

The Artificial Intelligentsia

thebaffler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–95 of 95 posts

Re: The Artificial Intelligentsia

#91

Post by ben_w »

sgt101 wrote: post #50
ben_w wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Blue Brain project managed something “as big and complex as half of a mouse brain” in 2007, so I think your claims of not-even-insect-level are outdated.

Not so sure that claim is right : http://www.artificialbrains.com/blue-brain-project Seems like they managed a honeybee (but I am not sure that it ran in real time or how they validated that) but were hoping for a rat brain. I'm quite sceptical - I don't believe that there is a good understanding of how a single neuron functions, or agreement on the taxonomy of neurons or an understanding or agreement on their intera…

Thanks for the link. I noticed it was “As of August 2012”, which despite being old still falsifies my prior belief. (Gell-Mann Amnesia, I incorrectly relied on the press for science). Unfortunately I can’t seem to find anything more up-to-date and just get more confused journalism.

That said, isn’t the point of the Blue Brain project to answer your skepticism? When we have all those things, the only thing remaining is to see what can be left out of the sim without compromising the behaviour?

Re: The Artificial Intelligentsia

#92

Post by sgt101 »

adrianN wrote: post #89
goatlover wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you believe the brain exists in the physical universe, that means you can build a physical system that also solves the same problems. Sure, but in the case of computation, is it possible to make a computing system that has subjective experiences? Maybe consciousness isn't something that can be expressed in computational terms, because computation is itself based on abstraction.

There is no way to define subjective experience such that you can tell whether something has them or not. The question is meaningless.

I think that is extremely austere, and misses a large part of the value of science and philosophy. In some ways the questions of cosmology matter far less to the vast majority of humans, and have in practical terms less qualification and quantification for those people than subjective experience communicated by drama, poetry and art. Stating that this is meaningless ignores the suffering and joy of humanity, and makes an unwarrented and low utility judgement about the set of beliefs that are legitimate in finding how things are.

Re: The Artificial Intelligentsia

#93

Post by pron »

JacobiX wrote: post #80
pron wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is Amdahl's law. You can only parallelize so much. While the brain is certainly extremely parallelized, neural nets do not employ the same algorithms as the brain, and so, unless we find algorithms that are more amenable to parallelization, Amdahl's law is going to get us.

Most modern neural networks implementations are parallelized. And that is why we can run them extremely well on the GPU. For example Volta GPUs delivers 5X increase in deep learning training compared to prior generation NVIDIA Pascal architecture. This is why I was asking for clarification about the hardware claims.

Of course they are, but they're not as parallelizable as the brain, which is why they're subject to Amdahl's law.

Re: The Artificial Intelligentsia

#95

Post by makapuf »

adrianN wrote: post #34
saas_co_de wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AlphaGo is impressive, but it is an impressive parlor trick not impressive as 'artificial intelligence' Playing a game with fixed rules and a finite set of potential states is something a computer can do. Designing the computer that does that is intelligent. There is no connection between the two and one does not lead to the other. The fact that some of the people developing 'artificial intelligence' have such a limi…

I'm looking forward to the day when we have a computer that passes the Turing test but comments like yours still show up.

Plot twist : parent is an AI !
Post reply on HN