7 ms·
for the sake of argument i will go with the opposite idea - why not? Do you have evidence that scaling up will fail to produce more intelligence? We already kno
by return1 8y ago
for the sake of argument i will go with the opposite idea - why not? Do you have evidence that scaling up will fail to produce more intelligence? We already know that the current deep networks (small,compared to the brain) produce fragments of intelligent behavior. we also have evidence that the brain is a connectionist system much much larger than the current ANNs. It would follow logically that intelligence could arise by simply scaling up.
- Barrin92 8y ago>we also have evidence that the brain is a connectionist system much much larger than the current ANNs. It would follow logically that intelligence could arise by simply scaling up. the little problem here is that it took 4 billion years of computing and a computer the size of a planet to come up with the nifty machines that are our brains. So unless you have brought a lot of tea and biscuits I think we should really think twice if just throwing more training and power at overly generalised algorithms is a good and realistic path forward. It's not so much that the idea of "throw more things at it" is impossible, it's that it's a questionable path towards human intelligence. If you just want human intelligence without any further understanding of how to make it there are cheaper ways already
- Erlich_Bachman 8y agoBut we already have those machines to inspire ourselves from! Evolution had nothing. That's why it took so long. I literally can't understand you people's pessimism.
- return1 8y ago> 4 billion years of computing and a computer the size of a planet That is not impossible to simulate, even if it includes the entire lineage of the humans. Also, nature prefers generalized algorithms as well, starting from DNA.