7 ms·

> artificial barrier due to compute resources That's not really an artificial barrier. The program which encodes General AI can already be discovered by brute

> artificial barrier due to compute resources That's not really an artificial barrier. The program which encodes General AI can already be discovered by brute force, given sufficient compute resources.

thomasahle 9y ago
How exactly? Do you have a codeable definition of General AI?
- adriand 9y ago
  It's a truism and as such it doesn't really say anything meaningful. The limiting factor is "sufficient compute resources". Assuming that a general artificial intelligence is possible and can be coded as a program, then whatever that program is could be created by something as dumb as a random number generator. Of course, given that it seems obvious that any program which encodes a general artificial intelligence will be complex, I expect it would take longer than the expected life of the universe to generate it with a random number generator using all of the compute resources available on the planet. So it's theoretically possible but practically impossible, which makes the OP's statement essentially pedantic.
- hobofan 9y ago
  while(passes_turing_test(general_ai) == false) { general_ai = generate_random_code; }
  - lsc 9y ago
    If you can implement passes_turing_test() in a way that is testable without human intervention... that would be a pretty great advance. I'm pretty sure we're not anywhere near there. The fundamental problem, as I understand it, is that none of us really understand what consciousness is - we all "know it when we see it" - which is a test that is not so amenable to automation. Perhaps if we had enough examples of different kinds of consciousness, we could set up a ML process :)
    - jeremyjh 9y ago
      I'd probably do it with a writing sample. Say, Macbeth. Just execute randomly generated bytes until they write Macbeth on their own. Of course it could pass on a 100 monkey type fluke, so after it passes then you submit it to a traditional Turing test. Given sufficient computing resources, this should yield strong AI in just a few minutes.
      - mikevin 9y ago
        I think writing Macbeth isn't a good indicator of anything except being Shakespeare. Asking it a few questions about some general concepts like logic, math, and patterns(relationships in Macbeth maybe?) would probably yield results that are much more likely to pass the test.
        vladf 9y ago
        I disagree on all counts. The first program that would be generated by such a procedure would very likely be the constant program that happens to always respond with the correct questions to your test. It depends how you randomly generate code, of course, but I doubt the complexity of a "general AI program" would ever be smaller than the complexity of the constant program which by luck returns the correct answer to your test.
        mattnewton 9y ago
        Generate the Math tests then? That prevents constants. Generating macbeth is a prompt most people here couldn’t pass, myself included...
        homarp 9y ago
        you can still use generating Macbeth as a good indicator, just by providing some inputs and constraints. Input is a Macbeth outline/play summary (e.g. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/m/macbeth/play-summary https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/m/macbeth/play-summar... ) Contraints are "in the style of : KingLear and Othello" and compare the produced text to Macbeth
mindcrime 9y ago
The program which encodes General AI can already be discovered by brute force, given sufficient compute resources. Even if that's true (and I don't think anybody can prove that point one way or the other just yet), who's to say that we have "sufficient compute resources" right now? That's what I'm getting at... an idea might be useful / valid in principle, but just not completely usable today because we don't have enough compute cycles available. The analogy is to ANN's which were limited by the computers available in the 80's and 90's, but became markedly more useful with modern CPU's and - even more so - with the advent of modern GPU's.
- jeremyjh 9y ago
  The point is that the barrier is REAL. It isn't "apparent" or "artificial". It is a fact about current computing resources.
  - mindcrime 9y ago
    the barrier is REAL. It isn't "apparent" or "artificial". It is a fact about current computing resources. Right. And let me add this: what I was getting at is that the ceiling is not an innate part of the approach itself. Perhaps I should have said "external" instead of "artificial". Anyway, yes, the point is about current computing resources vs computing resources (and other factors) at some indeterminate point in the future.
simonster 9y ago
Let's assume that evaluating a program takes one microsecond and one atom, and that we can parallelize the search across every atom in the observable universe. If the AGI program is 500 bits long, it will take about 10^57 years to find by brute-force search. There's a difference between ideas for which there is not enough compute right now and ideas that are computationally intractable according to our knowledge of the physical universe.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  FYI, we know what the theoretical physical bounds are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- abecedarius 9y ago
  Simulating evolution could also be called brute force. Doing that at a scale comparable to our own evolutionary history may be way out of range for present computers, but not foreseeable ones. (http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/Nanosystems/ch1/chapter1_1.html http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/Nanosystems/ch1/chapter1_1.html) Likely we'll get there sooner in some not-quite-so-brutish way -- I'd hope so for ethical reasons -- but that way is available.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    There is no reason to assume that evolution always brings about intelligent live. Anything "higher" on the ladder than bacteria could very well be an aberration that only arose due to very specific circumstances on prehistoric Earth.
    - perl4ever 9y ago
      I think we have more than a sample of one instance to look at though. The distinctive thing about humans is more that we operated collectively according to social rules, than pure intelligence.* Due to evolution, the coordination of individual entities has happened repeatedly. Individual molecules became living cells, some suggest living cells merged into cells with mitochondria, viruses and cells merged, single cells merged into multicellular organisms, insects organized into social colonies, and now primates, i.e. humans have also organized into social colonies. This doesn't prove evolution always creates social multicellular life, but it means (IMO) there is a clear pattern that provides a reason to assume it does short of specific reasoning or evidence about a barrier - why should the bacterial level be unique, and which bacteria would be the highest level?. *I don't think you can separate intelligence from a social context. What we think of intelligence is closely related to things like the willingness to give up current rewards for long term ones. But it's not "smart" to do that unless you have justified faith that you live in a stable society where people are trusted to follow social rules.

thomasahle 9y ago

How exactly? Do you have a codeable definition of General AI?

adriand 9y ago
It's a truism and as such it doesn't really say anything meaningful. The limiting factor is "sufficient compute resources". Assuming that a general artificial intelligence is possible and can be coded as a program, then whatever that program is could be created by something as dumb as a random number generator. Of course, given that it seems obvious that any program which encodes a general artificial intelligence will be complex, I expect it would take longer than the expected life of the universe to generate it with a random number generator using all of the compute resources available on the planet. So it's theoretically possible but practically impossible, which makes the OP's statement essentially pedantic.
hobofan 9y ago
while(passes_turing_test(general_ai) == false) { general_ai = generate_random_code; }
- lsc 9y ago
  If you can implement passes_turing_test() in a way that is testable without human intervention... that would be a pretty great advance. I'm pretty sure we're not anywhere near there. The fundamental problem, as I understand it, is that none of us really understand what consciousness is - we all "know it when we see it" - which is a test that is not so amenable to automation. Perhaps if we had enough examples of different kinds of consciousness, we could set up a ML process :)
  - jeremyjh 9y ago
    I'd probably do it with a writing sample. Say, Macbeth. Just execute randomly generated bytes until they write Macbeth on their own. Of course it could pass on a 100 monkey type fluke, so after it passes then you submit it to a traditional Turing test. Given sufficient computing resources, this should yield strong AI in just a few minutes.
    - mikevin 9y ago
      I think writing Macbeth isn't a good indicator of anything except being Shakespeare. Asking it a few questions about some general concepts like logic, math, and patterns(relationships in Macbeth maybe?) would probably yield results that are much more likely to pass the test.
      - vladf 9y ago
        I disagree on all counts. The first program that would be generated by such a procedure would very likely be the constant program that happens to always respond with the correct questions to your test. It depends how you randomly generate code, of course, but I doubt the complexity of a "general AI program" would ever be smaller than the complexity of the constant program which by luck returns the correct answer to your test.
        mattnewton 9y ago
        Generate the Math tests then? That prevents constants. Generating macbeth is a prompt most people here couldn’t pass, myself included...
      - homarp 9y ago
        you can still use generating Macbeth as a good indicator, just by providing some inputs and constraints. Input is a Macbeth outline/play summary (e.g. https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/m/macbeth/play-summary https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/m/macbeth/play-summar... ) Contraints are "in the style of : KingLear and Othello" and compare the produced text to Macbeth

mindcrime 9y ago

The program which encodes General AI can already be discovered by brute force, given sufficient compute resources. Even if that's true (and I don't think anybody can prove that point one way or the other just yet), who's to say that we have "sufficient compute resources" right now? That's what I'm getting at... an idea might be useful / valid in principle, but just not completely usable today because we don't have enough compute cycles available. The analogy is to ANN's which were limited by the computers available in the 80's and 90's, but became markedly more useful with modern CPU's and - even more so - with the advent of modern GPU's.

jeremyjh 9y ago
The point is that the barrier is REAL. It isn't "apparent" or "artificial". It is a fact about current computing resources.
- mindcrime 9y ago
  the barrier is REAL. It isn't "apparent" or "artificial". It is a fact about current computing resources. Right. And let me add this: what I was getting at is that the ceiling is not an innate part of the approach itself. Perhaps I should have said "external" instead of "artificial". Anyway, yes, the point is about current computing resources vs computing resources (and other factors) at some indeterminate point in the future.

simonster 9y ago

Let's assume that evaluating a program takes one microsecond and one atom, and that we can parallelize the search across every atom in the observable universe. If the AGI program is 500 bits long, it will take about 10^57 years to find by brute-force search. There's a difference between ideas for which there is not enough compute right now and ideas that are computationally intractable according to our knowledge of the physical universe.

smallnamespace 9y ago
FYI, we know what the theoretical physical bounds are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
abecedarius 9y ago
Simulating evolution could also be called brute force. Doing that at a scale comparable to our own evolutionary history may be way out of range for present computers, but not foreseeable ones. (http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/Nanosystems/ch1/chapter1_1.html http://e-drexler.com/d/06/00/Nanosystems/ch1/chapter1_1.html) Likely we'll get there sooner in some not-quite-so-brutish way -- I'd hope so for ethical reasons -- but that way is available.
- adrianN 9y ago
  There is no reason to assume that evolution always brings about intelligent live. Anything "higher" on the ladder than bacteria could very well be an aberration that only arose due to very specific circumstances on prehistoric Earth.
  - perl4ever 9y ago
    I think we have more than a sample of one instance to look at though. The distinctive thing about humans is more that we operated collectively according to social rules, than pure intelligence.* Due to evolution, the coordination of individual entities has happened repeatedly. Individual molecules became living cells, some suggest living cells merged into cells with mitochondria, viruses and cells merged, single cells merged into multicellular organisms, insects organized into social colonies, and now primates, i.e. humans have also organized into social colonies. This doesn't prove evolution always creates social multicellular life, but it means (IMO) there is a clear pattern that provides a reason to assume it does short of specific reasoning or evidence about a barrier - why should the bacterial level be unique, and which bacteria would be the highest level?. *I don't think you can separate intelligence from a social context. What we think of intelligence is closely related to things like the willingness to give up current rewards for long term ones. But it's not "smart" to do that unless you have justified faith that you live in a stable society where people are trusted to follow social rules.