3 ms·
It is always the case that Superhuman AI proponents comes up with the argument that "there is nothing magical about human brain". Yes, everybody agrees about th
by ankurdhama 9y ago
It is always the case that Superhuman AI proponents comes up with the argument that "there is nothing magical about human brain". Yes, everybody agrees about that, even people who oppose Superhuman AI and are sane enough to not evoke mystical powers argument.
The problem is:
1. Understand brain and simulate it to get intelligence. Sounds simple right? How about simulating a nuclear reaction, which we already understands, on my computer and generating nuclear power?
2. Once you understand something you can create it. This is a fallacy, a big one. We understand solar system, lets create one, whats the problem?
3. Simulating a brain will give you a brain, with all its limitations and problems that we have with human brain. Oh then we can tweak it to make more intelligent? Sorry you cant do that without changing the whole model completely, in which case it will no longer be a "brain".
- Houshalter 9y agoIf you simulate a nuclear reaction you get... maybe a nice video of atoms smashing together? If you simulate a brain you get an intelligent computer program. Same with the solar system. We can create simulated solar systems. We will probably be able to make simulated brains. What is your point? Alright, assuming the first AI even is a simulated brain (I don't see why we can't invent intelligence from first principles first.) We could definitely tweak it. We know of drugs like amphetamines that enhance human ability. That's like Stone Age tech compared to what's possible if we had unlimited control over every neuron in the entire brain. Not to mention just adding more neurons and making a larger brain. This is just touching on what's possible, I could go on for ages on possible improvements.
- ankurdhama 9y agoMy point regarding the simulation argument is that there is a difference between computational simulation and physical simulation.
- danidiaz 9y agoIf I simulate a map I get a map. Are minds like maps, or like nuclear reactions?
- ankurdhama 9y agoI have no idea what you are trying to say. A simulation is about "changes in the state of a system over time". Not sure how you can simulate a map?
- danidiaz 9y agoI meant something like taking a physical map and representing it as bits in the memory of a computer. That's still a map; you can orient yourself with it. I'm just saying that there are things whose simulation is still a thing of the same kind. Perhaps minds are like that. In everyday life, we treat other minds more like "maps" than like "nuclear reactions". We interact with nuclear reactions by getting radiation sickness and dying. We interact with people through more indirect channels. A simulation could be at the other end of the channel and we wouldn't know. Maybe he wouldn't now, either! We don't get electrocuted when our interlocutor's neurons are firing, the effects on us are only through his external behaviour. It's the abstract informational flow what seems to matter.
- adrianN 9y agoWhat can a real brain do that a simulated brain can't?
- ankurdhama 9y agoOnly one way to find out - Create a simulated brain and you will get the answer.
- interfixus 9y agoIf you simulate a brain you get an intelligent computer program That sounds like a really interesting experiment. Have you published your data?