5 ms·

Wherein is the basis to assume AGI is even possible? Isn't a fundamental faith that consciousness and insight is replicable a same blind faith that there is a G

Wherein is the basis to assume AGI is even possible? Isn't a fundamental faith that consciousness and insight is replicable a same blind faith that there is a God, for example? How is one more arbitrary than the other?

binalpatel 10y ago
We have proof that consciousness and insight are possible in nature - mainly us. We replicate it with each generation, and watch it grow as children age.
tfgg 10y ago
> consciousness and insight Being unmeasurable and undefined, and therefore irrelevant to measures of intelligence, "consciousness" is typically not considered part of AGI [1]. Not sure what you mean by "insight". [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329
mikeash 10y ago
Seems like the exact opposite of faith in God to me. If you accept the supernatural, then there is the possibility that humanity has some "spark" which cannot be replicated artificially. But without the supernatural, humans are just matter organized a certain way, and as such demonstrate that intelligence can be constructed out of matter.
Joof 10y ago
If it's all traditional physics, we can eventually just simulate the whole structure in the worst case where we have no idea how it works.
- goldfeld 10y ago
  Believing "it's all traditional physics" has no basis, the only evidence from the past is that models keep getting overturned in counterintuitive directions, and current ones have been long at odds. Has the world raised a generation arrogant as to blindly accept we know it all, and trade away scientific inquiry for a little scientific rigour? Science and philosophy are names for different phases of a same process for reaching understanding. Shouldn't we at this confused point in time go back to the drawing board of philoshophy before piling on hopes in search of a holy grail of superhuman intelligence? What does human intelligence even mean and how is it limited, what are the constraints applicable? How does the perceptive, probing imagination and profound insight of someone like Einstein or Tesla work? Can machine learning create a theoretical physicist? We don't know.
  - Joof 10y ago
    I'm just saying that it's very likely possible based on what we know. Not that we know how. Even if it's based on quantum physics, it only means that we can't simply copy a brain and will have to come up with our own system. I worked in an AI / Brain lab for some time. I see no reason it can't be done, but I don't expect it to happen for a while. If it isn't possible to build a brain, then how do we ourselves exist? Time and research will eventually be able to do it.

binalpatel 10y ago

We have proof that consciousness and insight are possible in nature - mainly us. We replicate it with each generation, and watch it grow as children age.

tfgg 10y ago

> consciousness and insight Being unmeasurable and undefined, and therefore irrelevant to measures of intelligence, "consciousness" is typically not considered part of AGI [1]. Not sure what you mean by "insight". [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329 http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.3329

mikeash 10y ago

Seems like the exact opposite of faith in God to me. If you accept the supernatural, then there is the possibility that humanity has some "spark" which cannot be replicated artificially. But without the supernatural, humans are just matter organized a certain way, and as such demonstrate that intelligence can be constructed out of matter.

Joof 10y ago

If it's all traditional physics, we can eventually just simulate the whole structure in the worst case where we have no idea how it works.

goldfeld 10y ago
Believing "it's all traditional physics" has no basis, the only evidence from the past is that models keep getting overturned in counterintuitive directions, and current ones have been long at odds. Has the world raised a generation arrogant as to blindly accept we know it all, and trade away scientific inquiry for a little scientific rigour? Science and philosophy are names for different phases of a same process for reaching understanding. Shouldn't we at this confused point in time go back to the drawing board of philoshophy before piling on hopes in search of a holy grail of superhuman intelligence? What does human intelligence even mean and how is it limited, what are the constraints applicable? How does the perceptive, probing imagination and profound insight of someone like Einstein or Tesla work? Can machine learning create a theoretical physicist? We don't know.
- Joof 10y ago
  I'm just saying that it's very likely possible based on what we know. Not that we know how. Even if it's based on quantum physics, it only means that we can't simply copy a brain and will have to come up with our own system. I worked in an AI / Brain lab for some time. I see no reason it can't be done, but I don't expect it to happen for a while. If it isn't possible to build a brain, then how do we ourselves exist? Time and research will eventually be able to do it.