3 ms·
Just because we can observe something happening, doesn't mean we can understand the mechanisms of how that thing happens and even if we CAN understand the mecha
by gooseus 9y ago
Just because we can observe something happening, doesn't mean we can understand the mechanisms of how that thing happens and even if we CAN understand the mechanism, it doesn't mean the mechanism is feasibly reproducible within our resource capability.
An example might use crypto... you observe random information flying through the air, you may recognize it as an encrypted channel and you may see a machine acting in response to this encrypted signal.
With enough observation you may be able to mimic the encrypted signal to get the machine to act in a certain way, but you haven't decrypted the actual signal (and can't ever, if you believe in strong crypto) and can't ever say with any certainty you know the full scope of communication taking place or the capabilities of the machine you've been observing.
At any point you can make your own version of the machine mimicking the language tuning it to be an exact replica of the original and even responding to the original signal. Yet, is it truly a copy of the original?
- johansch 9y agoYou're missing the point several times over. The entire point is very simple: if there is no magic involved it's down to physics. If it's possible to create brains without magic, it is possible to do so artificially.
- gooseus 9y agoI don't think I am... if a task is possible, but takes 100x the lifetime of the universe to accomplish, is it actually "possible"? Or is accomplishing that task the same as "magic"? It I send a message using a one-time pad, the other person knows what I sent, you can ask questions and see that communication is actually happening... so if we're not using magic to communicate, it must be possible to communicate in the same way, right? Yet it's mathmatically impossible to do so without access to hidden information (shared key)... no laws says that you can access that information, even with all the computational ability available in the universe. The mechanisms and communication patterns of consciousness are similar, if it takes till the sun explodes to train a true AGI then aren't we just getting pedantic about what is possible/magic?
- johansch 9y agoThat doesn't really make much sense to me, I'm afraid. Please bear with me, but my first guess is that you have invented a coping mechanism that allows you to deal with conflicting information in your mind. Are you by any chance religious? (I figure I should be allowed to ask such a normally speaking quite loaded question because of my previous statements, up the thread.)
- gooseus 9y agoNo, I am not, by any chance, religious. I don't rule out the possibility of a God or God-like intelligence existing in the Universe, but that's simply as a result of the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" principle I hold to. I don't really see how religion factors into this though... I feel like I'm talking about a simple concept too. If I show you an encrypted message and show you that other people can read the contents with a key, then ask you to read it without the key, why can't you? It's not magic, it's math.
- johansch 9y agoWell, my apoligies for being presumptuous then.
- sullyj3 9y agoYour first guess? You don't get to dismiss peoples' arguments as superstition just because you don't understand them.
- sampo 9y agoI don't think anyone is saying there won't be human level AI 500+ years into the future. Like you said, it's not against the laws of physics or anything. The question is, will it happen in less than 50-100 years, or would we be like medieval alchemists rushing to outline the first nuclear weapons treaties, right after they have just invented black gunpowder.