5 ms·

It's fascinating that nature has created human-level intelligence using blind randomness, albeit over a period of 1+ billion years. My theory is that with rene

It's fascinating that nature has created human-level intelligence using blind randomness, albeit over a period of 1+ billion years. My theory is that with renewed global focus on AI, we're going to have a lot of minds looking at this problem from various outside perspectives. I believe a breakthrough in AI will come about not from the computer science sphere, but a very unlikely area that will surprise many.

nairboon 11y ago
What would your guess be for that area?
- sixQuarks 11y ago
  Biology would be the "obvious" answer, but more specifically, I could see a breakthrough coming from psychedelic research, which is making a huge comeback right now after decades of ridicule. It's amazing how little research has been conducted in this area, a lot of scientists are rediscovering and relearning things that were first explored back in the 60s, and there's already been lots of progress related to human psychology.
  - tim333 11y ago
    Deep Mind are working on the biology thing and more specifically study of the human brain. Demis Hassabis, the main guy at Deep Mind did a PhD in cognitive neuroscience and is focused on that stuff. Not so sure about psychedelic research - I don't know how you'd use that to build computer systems even if the Google dream pictures are pretty trippy looking. (https://www.google.com/search?q=google+dreams&num=20&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj41bDriNvKAhXDuo4KHZxNC40QsAQIHw&biw=1093&bih=478 https://www.google.com/search?q=google+dreams&num=20&tbm=isc...)
    - sixQuarks 11y ago
      Actually, you just brought up a great point. The Google dream pictures are very similar to what you might see during a psychedelic experience. I admit I don't know how psychedelic research could help in building AI, I'm just saying that my hunch is that a breakthrough in AI will come about from left field somewhere.
Florin_Andrei 11y ago
> It's fascinating that nature has created human-level intelligence using blind randomness Blind randomness plus tons of feedback ("natural selection" etc). Randomness alone, without feedback loops, could not make anything interesting even in a trillion years - that's the argument of the creationists, actually.

nairboon 11y ago

What would your guess be for that area?

sixQuarks 11y ago
Biology would be the "obvious" answer, but more specifically, I could see a breakthrough coming from psychedelic research, which is making a huge comeback right now after decades of ridicule. It's amazing how little research has been conducted in this area, a lot of scientists are rediscovering and relearning things that were first explored back in the 60s, and there's already been lots of progress related to human psychology.
- tim333 11y ago
  Deep Mind are working on the biology thing and more specifically study of the human brain. Demis Hassabis, the main guy at Deep Mind did a PhD in cognitive neuroscience and is focused on that stuff. Not so sure about psychedelic research - I don't know how you'd use that to build computer systems even if the Google dream pictures are pretty trippy looking. (https://www.google.com/search?q=google+dreams&num=20&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj41bDriNvKAhXDuo4KHZxNC40QsAQIHw&biw=1093&bih=478 https://www.google.com/search?q=google+dreams&num=20&tbm=isc...)
  - sixQuarks 11y ago
    Actually, you just brought up a great point. The Google dream pictures are very similar to what you might see during a psychedelic experience. I admit I don't know how psychedelic research could help in building AI, I'm just saying that my hunch is that a breakthrough in AI will come about from left field somewhere.

Florin_Andrei 11y ago

> It's fascinating that nature has created human-level intelligence using blind randomness Blind randomness plus tons of feedback ("natural selection" etc). Randomness alone, without feedback loops, could not make anything interesting even in a trillion years - that's the argument of the creationists, actually.