4 ms·

>But what evidence do we have that a human level AI would be able to scale easily? The fact it would probably be software, executing on a digital platform. The

by rl3 11y ago

>But what evidence do we have that a human level AI would be able to scale easily? The fact it would probably be software, executing on a digital platform. These things typically lend themselves to optimization and scaling. Seems to me that the chance we'll have just enough computing power to run human-level AI—without sufficient resources to go beyond that—is a small one. It is far more likely that we will either have too little, or more than ample computing power available. What evidence do you have that human-level AI won't scale easily? The best argument I can think of in your favor would be prohibitive computational complexity requirements, but the aforementioned dynamic still applies—it's unlikely that we'd have only just enough computing power to achieve human-level and not go beyond that.

Chathamization 11y ago
We can look at efforts to stimulate the brain, which do not seem to scale easy. As I wrote in another comment, the K computer was able to simulate a seconds worth of brain activity. It doesn't seem to have scaled easily. I don't have experience with supercomputers, but I have a feeling that things are a bit more complicated than "just network it together with another supercomputer, and then everything will be twice as fast." And that's just talking about a raw increase in computing power. We don't have any idea whether a human level intelligence program would even be able to put increased processing power to good use (and it could theoretically be detrimental; look at what happens to humans who have too many neuronal connections).
- rl3 11y ago
  >We can look at efforts to stimulate the brain, which do not seem to scale easy. Simulating the brain isn't necessarily the path to human-level AGI though. Simulating biology in digital form tends to be inefficient. Modern machine learning scales easily, or at least relatively easy. >(and it could theoretically be detrimental; look at what happens to humans who have too many neuronal connections) Perhaps a constraint of our brain's cognitive architecture and not intrinsic to cognition itself. Still, interesting point.

by rl3 11y ago

Chathamization 11y ago

We can look at efforts to stimulate the brain, which do not seem to scale easy. As I wrote in another comment, the K computer was able to simulate a seconds worth of brain activity. It doesn't seem to have scaled easily. I don't have experience with supercomputers, but I have a feeling that things are a bit more complicated than "just network it together with another supercomputer, and then everything will be twice as fast." And that's just talking about a raw increase in computing power. We don't have any idea whether a human level intelligence program would even be able to put increased processing power to good use (and it could theoretically be detrimental; look at what happens to humans who have too many neuronal connections).

rl3 11y ago
>We can look at efforts to stimulate the brain, which do not seem to scale easy. Simulating the brain isn't necessarily the path to human-level AGI though. Simulating biology in digital form tends to be inefficient. Modern machine learning scales easily, or at least relatively easy. >(and it could theoretically be detrimental; look at what happens to humans who have too many neuronal connections) Perhaps a constraint of our brain's cognitive architecture and not intrinsic to cognition itself. Still, interesting point.