5 ms·

> Each one of those synapse is a complex, constantly adapting chemical computer which is sensitive to the interaction of dozens of neurotransmitters. Granted.

> Each one of those synapse is a complex, constantly adapting chemical computer which is sensitive to the interaction of dozens of neurotransmitters. Granted. On the other hand, electric signals can propagate across a chip several orders of magnitude faster than the chemical-electrical signals neurons use to communicate. So while our current path won't lead us to an artificial brain that works exactly like the human brain, it might still make one that's just as smart through pure brute force. A biologist in 1902 could very reasonably have scoffed at the heavier-than-air flight enthusiasts who pointed at birds as a proof of concept. The biologist could point out that the complex, many-part motion of a bird's flapping wing was far beyond the crude mechanical processes inventors were trying to use to replicate it. And they'd be right. But in a much more important way, they'd be wrong. I have no idea whether we're on the path to AGI or not, but I do think that "we're not building machines that work exactly like the brain does" is a poor counterargument.

skohan 8y ago
> "we're not building machines that work exactly like the brain does" is a poor counterargument. It's not that artificial intelligence has to work exactly like human intelligence; my point is that the system that produces human intelligence is many orders of magnitude more complex than what passes for AI these days. I think there's an idea out there that because deep learning allows computers to solve some problems that we thought were in the exclusive domain of humanity even a few years ago, that the refinement of these technologies and Moore's law will steadily close the gap between AI and human intelligence. I would venture to guess there are a lot of hard, novel problems left to solve before we get anywhere close. edit: It's also not the first time we've thought we had intelligence "figured out". In the middle of last century, there was a lot of hubris around the field of neuroscience as we started to understand the brain's topology, and could map specific functions to brain regions. The feeling at the time was that we would refine our map, and sooner or later once we figured out what all the parts did, we would have a total understanding of the human mind. This paradigm led to some horrifically misguided practices. For instance the use of lobotomy to treat psychiatric disorders: if the brain is just a collection of functional regions, why not just cut out the bad bits right? Turns out it's not that simple.
- newsbinator 8y ago
  It may not be necessary for a system to be as complex as the human brain to reach the raw intelligence levels of the human brain. You don't need to make a vehicle as complex as a cheetah for it to move as quickly as cheetah. You just strap a rocket to a box and you're there. Granted a rough solution like that is not as good or as agile as a live cheetah in a lot of ways, but it depends on what you're optimizing for.
  - skohan 8y ago
    You can also train a horse to tap it's foot once for "yes" and twice for "no". You can ask it a bunch of questions, and it can seem like you're having a conversation, but it turns out the horse is just paying attention to a few details about your body language and performing the action you gave it carrots for. It might seem like intelligence, even to the trainer, but it's a parlor trick.
    - newsbinator 8y ago
      Once the horse starts tapping its foot to accurately detect cancer better than humans, then, parlor trick or not, you've got a fine horse there.
      - skohan 8y ago
        I don't mean to diminish the power and value provided by deep learning, but it doesn't change the fact that pattern recognition is not equivalent to intelligence.
        newsbinator 8y ago
        I don't disagree that pattern recognition and intelligence are (probably?) different things. But if they're functionality equivalent, I'm cool with that. Heck, it might turn out that humans are already just pattern recognition machines and nothing but. I'm cool with that too.

skohan 8y ago

> "we're not building machines that work exactly like the brain does" is a poor counterargument. It's not that artificial intelligence has to work exactly like human intelligence; my point is that the system that produces human intelligence is many orders of magnitude more complex than what passes for AI these days. I think there's an idea out there that because deep learning allows computers to solve some problems that we thought were in the exclusive domain of humanity even a few years ago, that the refinement of these technologies and Moore's law will steadily close the gap between AI and human intelligence. I would venture to guess there are a lot of hard, novel problems left to solve before we get anywhere close. edit: It's also not the first time we've thought we had intelligence "figured out". In the middle of last century, there was a lot of hubris around the field of neuroscience as we started to understand the brain's topology, and could map specific functions to brain regions. The feeling at the time was that we would refine our map, and sooner or later once we figured out what all the parts did, we would have a total understanding of the human mind. This paradigm led to some horrifically misguided practices. For instance the use of lobotomy to treat psychiatric disorders: if the brain is just a collection of functional regions, why not just cut out the bad bits right? Turns out it's not that simple.

newsbinator 8y ago
It may not be necessary for a system to be as complex as the human brain to reach the raw intelligence levels of the human brain. You don't need to make a vehicle as complex as a cheetah for it to move as quickly as cheetah. You just strap a rocket to a box and you're there. Granted a rough solution like that is not as good or as agile as a live cheetah in a lot of ways, but it depends on what you're optimizing for.
- skohan 8y ago
  You can also train a horse to tap it's foot once for "yes" and twice for "no". You can ask it a bunch of questions, and it can seem like you're having a conversation, but it turns out the horse is just paying attention to a few details about your body language and performing the action you gave it carrots for. It might seem like intelligence, even to the trainer, but it's a parlor trick.
  - newsbinator 8y ago
    Once the horse starts tapping its foot to accurately detect cancer better than humans, then, parlor trick or not, you've got a fine horse there.
    - skohan 8y ago
      I don't mean to diminish the power and value provided by deep learning, but it doesn't change the fact that pattern recognition is not equivalent to intelligence.
      - newsbinator 8y ago
        I don't disagree that pattern recognition and intelligence are (probably?) different things. But if they're functionality equivalent, I'm cool with that. Heck, it might turn out that humans are already just pattern recognition machines and nothing but. I'm cool with that too.