3 ms·

I cannot decide if this paper is meant to be a joke. Also, there is no proof that true AI can be achieved with Turing completeness alone, so this is a gaping h

I cannot decide if this paper is meant to be a joke. Also, there is no proof that true AI can be achieved with Turing completeness alone, so this is a gaping hole in the logic right there.

sbierwagen 9y ago
Do you believe the human brain is not a computational system?
- gmueckl 9y ago
  The human brain does not follow a computer architecture that we can replicate in a lab.
  - sbierwagen 9y ago
    A computer architecture that we can ever replicate in a lab? The human brain is entirely beyond the ability of any computer to simulate it, ever?
    - gmueckl 9y ago
      Should we master replicating that, we also must gain a much better understanding of AI and human intelligence along the way. Our current computers are certainly not able to simulate a human brain. No computer in the world has currently the computing power to run decent, biochemistry based models for each neuron in a human brain. This basically calls for specialized hardware, which may or may not extend the limits of computable problems beyond Turing completeness. If we manage to get to that point, we will have to face more important ethical challenges anyway, like how do we deal with tools that allow us to assess what a person is thinking and planning with near certainty? At that point, the key argument of the paper might actually fall apart because there is a chance that we end up understanding the inner workings of the alien AI. But at that point we have heaped up so much speculation that decent science fiction authors are about to get jealous.
      - sbierwagen 9y ago
        >This basically calls for specialized hardware, which may or may not extend the limits of computable problems beyond Turing completeness. In... what way do you think human brains are hypercomputers? Keep in mind that quantum computers are "merely" Turing universal, they can't solve decidability. (If you think that human brains can solve the halting program, then I would like to ask you to produce Busy Beaver 100) To the contrary, I believe human brains are what they look like: a glob of regular, boring old proteins, interacting with each other using normal atoms. No exotic physics, closed timelike curves, integrated information theory phi factor, Penrose quantum spookiness, Sam Hughes infolectricity, nothing. Humans aren't special, we're just atoms, capable of being simulated by a sufficiently gigantic Turing machine.
        gmueckl 9y ago
        When you are equating brains with quantum computers, you are again jumping to conclusions. If I had to guess right now, I'd say that it is more likely that the human brain has clever ways to exploit signal timings and randomness (e.g. Brownian motion). There is no room for large scale and/or long duration quantum processes in biochemistry.
        sbierwagen 9y ago
        >If I had to guess right now, I'd say that it is more likely that the human brain has clever ways to exploit signal timings and randomness Then why do you think it's a hypercomputer? These are all classical physical effects. What math problems do you think the human brain can solve that a Turing machine with sufficient time can't?
        gmueckl 9y ago
        A machine that is capable of truly random behavior is no longer a Turing machine. The human brain does not only have access to that kind of randomness, it is fundamentally subject to it. Biological organisms need to actively protect themselves against that to succeed.
  - trixie_ 9y ago
    Couldn't a simulation of all the atoms be done with a computer that was theoretically powerful enough?
    - gmueckl 9y ago
      Well, there are two catches involved: we don't have that kind of model for a human brain, but it would be required to setup proper initial conditions for a working brain. Second, depending on the simulation method required (classical vs. QM), the resulting model could easily end up being so ridiculously huge that we couldn't build a computer capable of running it based on current tech for lack of natural resources.
    - jes5199 9y ago
      sure, but it would be physically larger than the brain, and require significantly more energy - and because of those constraints, might be slower

I cannot decide if this paper is meant to be a joke. Also, there is no proof that true AI can be achieved with Turing completeness alone, so this is a gaping hole in the logic right there.

sbierwagen 9y ago

Do you believe the human brain is not a computational system?

gmueckl 9y ago
The human brain does not follow a computer architecture that we can replicate in a lab.
- sbierwagen 9y ago
  A computer architecture that we can ever replicate in a lab? The human brain is entirely beyond the ability of any computer to simulate it, ever?
  - gmueckl 9y ago
    Should we master replicating that, we also must gain a much better understanding of AI and human intelligence along the way. Our current computers are certainly not able to simulate a human brain. No computer in the world has currently the computing power to run decent, biochemistry based models for each neuron in a human brain. This basically calls for specialized hardware, which may or may not extend the limits of computable problems beyond Turing completeness. If we manage to get to that point, we will have to face more important ethical challenges anyway, like how do we deal with tools that allow us to assess what a person is thinking and planning with near certainty? At that point, the key argument of the paper might actually fall apart because there is a chance that we end up understanding the inner workings of the alien AI. But at that point we have heaped up so much speculation that decent science fiction authors are about to get jealous.
    - sbierwagen 9y ago
      >This basically calls for specialized hardware, which may or may not extend the limits of computable problems beyond Turing completeness. In... what way do you think human brains are hypercomputers? Keep in mind that quantum computers are "merely" Turing universal, they can't solve decidability. (If you think that human brains can solve the halting program, then I would like to ask you to produce Busy Beaver 100) To the contrary, I believe human brains are what they look like: a glob of regular, boring old proteins, interacting with each other using normal atoms. No exotic physics, closed timelike curves, integrated information theory phi factor, Penrose quantum spookiness, Sam Hughes infolectricity, nothing. Humans aren't special, we're just atoms, capable of being simulated by a sufficiently gigantic Turing machine.
      - gmueckl 9y ago
        When you are equating brains with quantum computers, you are again jumping to conclusions. If I had to guess right now, I'd say that it is more likely that the human brain has clever ways to exploit signal timings and randomness (e.g. Brownian motion). There is no room for large scale and/or long duration quantum processes in biochemistry.
        sbierwagen 9y ago
        >If I had to guess right now, I'd say that it is more likely that the human brain has clever ways to exploit signal timings and randomness Then why do you think it's a hypercomputer? These are all classical physical effects. What math problems do you think the human brain can solve that a Turing machine with sufficient time can't?
        gmueckl 9y ago
        A machine that is capable of truly random behavior is no longer a Turing machine. The human brain does not only have access to that kind of randomness, it is fundamentally subject to it. Biological organisms need to actively protect themselves against that to succeed.
- trixie_ 9y ago
  Couldn't a simulation of all the atoms be done with a computer that was theoretically powerful enough?
  - gmueckl 9y ago
    Well, there are two catches involved: we don't have that kind of model for a human brain, but it would be required to setup proper initial conditions for a working brain. Second, depending on the simulation method required (classical vs. QM), the resulting model could easily end up being so ridiculously huge that we couldn't build a computer capable of running it based on current tech for lack of natural resources.
  - jes5199 9y ago
    sure, but it would be physically larger than the brain, and require significantly more energy - and because of those constraints, might be slower