5 ms·

> And then the uncomfortable details emerge: that it's not a matter of faster processors, more memory, or even more advanced programming models: that there is s

> And then the uncomfortable details emerge: that it's not a matter of faster processors, more memory, or even more advanced programming models: that there is still some fundamental aspect of real, human-like, or even animal-like intelligence that eludes us. I believe this was answered in GEB. Hofstadter mentions how humans (and some animals) can step out of a system and analyze it objectively. Meaning, we can take the rules of a system, analyze, and determine that we will never be able to generate the desired results. We can objectively lot at things (even ourselves) and reason about them. A computer, on the other hand, even the most advanced AI, is still just blindly executing the commands given to it.

schoen 11y ago
> I believe this was answered in GEB. In my reading of GEB, Hofstadter was criticizing other authors who disagreed with his understanding of the Church-Turing thesis (that human intelligence is, or at least is not more powerful than, some kind of rule-following system). Hofstadter thinks that there is no inherent contradiction or essential difference in kind between the human who "can step out of a system" and the computer "just blindly executing the commands given to it". (But Hofstadter didn't explain at a technical level how to make a computer that's as intelligent as a human being.)
- sgt101 11y ago
  I think that's the exact opposite of my reading, I think he flagged that Godel had exactly pointed to why humans and CT machines were different.
sklivvz1971 11y ago
According to GEB, humans have an internal model of their own mind, ergo a conscience. This is what allows them to step out of the system - they can step out of the system within the model.
- swombat 11y ago
  I'd say the human model of one's own mind is extremely faulty. Bugs in said self-understanding frequently result in conflicts (as we blame everything but our own actions), wars, etc. Anyone who does any coaching work is intensely aware of these limits (in everyone, btw, the coach included!)...
  - fao_ 11y ago
    Perhaps it could instead be rephrased to 'the ability to build an internal model of their own, and other people's mind'?
  - sklivvz1971 11y ago
    Yep that goes without saying. The model of something will always be a limited, faulty version for the original.
NotZachari 11y ago
It all goes back to the theory that it's impossible to implement "unbounded nondeterminism", according to Dijkstra. As mentioned, humans can step out of a system and analyze it objectively. In essence, the rules can be broken and changed at any time, which means the system is constantly evolving. Logic does not always truly need to play a part, either. The system is constantly changing and adjusting. Because of this limitation due to our inability to implement systems that are truly nondeterministic, we are forced to use the constantly improving resources (such as faster processors, memory, better algorithms) to improve the speed at which we can mimic this behavior. However, these methods still require the data at hand to function, and several of them lead to exponential growth. As you said, it is always limited to what it's given.
- yarou 11y ago
  What if you have an agent that can understand not only the rules of a generic game, but the metagame as well? I think that would be a good stab at unbounded nondeterminism.

schoen 11y ago

> I believe this was answered in GEB. In my reading of GEB, Hofstadter was criticizing other authors who disagreed with his understanding of the Church-Turing thesis (that human intelligence is, or at least is not more powerful than, some kind of rule-following system). Hofstadter thinks that there is no inherent contradiction or essential difference in kind between the human who "can step out of a system" and the computer "just blindly executing the commands given to it". (But Hofstadter didn't explain at a technical level how to make a computer that's as intelligent as a human being.)

sgt101 11y ago
I think that's the exact opposite of my reading, I think he flagged that Godel had exactly pointed to why humans and CT machines were different.

sklivvz1971 11y ago

According to GEB, humans have an internal model of their own mind, ergo a conscience. This is what allows them to step out of the system - they can step out of the system within the model.

swombat 11y ago
I'd say the human model of one's own mind is extremely faulty. Bugs in said self-understanding frequently result in conflicts (as we blame everything but our own actions), wars, etc. Anyone who does any coaching work is intensely aware of these limits (in everyone, btw, the coach included!)...
- fao_ 11y ago
  Perhaps it could instead be rephrased to 'the ability to build an internal model of their own, and other people's mind'?
- sklivvz1971 11y ago
  Yep that goes without saying. The model of something will always be a limited, faulty version for the original.

NotZachari 11y ago

It all goes back to the theory that it's impossible to implement "unbounded nondeterminism", according to Dijkstra. As mentioned, humans can step out of a system and analyze it objectively. In essence, the rules can be broken and changed at any time, which means the system is constantly evolving. Logic does not always truly need to play a part, either. The system is constantly changing and adjusting. Because of this limitation due to our inability to implement systems that are truly nondeterministic, we are forced to use the constantly improving resources (such as faster processors, memory, better algorithms) to improve the speed at which we can mimic this behavior. However, these methods still require the data at hand to function, and several of them lead to exponential growth. As you said, it is always limited to what it's given.

yarou 11y ago
What if you have an agent that can understand not only the rules of a generic game, but the metagame as well? I think that would be a good stab at unbounded nondeterminism.