6 ms·

People definitely study whether AGI is possible. For example, philpapers.org lists ~2000 on the philosophy of cognitive science [1], and each of these papers i

People definitely study whether AGI is possible. For example, philpapers.org lists ~2000 on the philosophy of cognitive science [1], and each of these papers is discussing some aspect of the possibility of AGI. [1] https://philpapers.org/browse/cognitive-sciences https://philpapers.org/browse/cognitive-sciences

yters 8y ago
Every such paper I've seen assumes AGI is possible, and is only concerned with the how question. Alternatively, it talks about 'qualia' and 'consciousness' which are not well defined enough to answer the question whether AGI is possible. If you've seen any papers addressing the more fundamental question in a quantitative manner I'd be interested to see a link.
- vkou 8y ago
  > Every such paper I've seen assumes AGI is possible, and is only concerned with the how question. Human brains exist, human brains are AGI, human brains are manufactured on a daily basis, ergo, it is in theory possible to manufacture an AGI.
  - yters 8y ago
    How do you know human brains are AGI?
    - feanaro 8y ago
      Define AGI.
      - yters 8y ago
        Reducible to a Turing machine.
        feanaro 8y ago
        That doesn't sound like a complete definition of the term "AGI", unless you mean that anything reducible to a Turing machine is an AGI. In any case, I'm not sure why the term "artificial general intelligence" should be constrained to Turing machines. Nothing about it implies a Turing machine; just that it possesses intelligence and is artificially manufactured.
- jackpirate 8y ago
  Roger Penrose is a pretty famous mathematician who has a side-hobby of arguing that AGI is impossible. I believe his most famous work in this vein is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind, but he has a handful of others as well. His arguments are pretty well grounded in both math and physics. I wouldn't describe the work as "quantitative", but it's probably about as quantitative as is possible at this point.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Roger Penrose is a pretty famous mathematician who has a side-hobby of arguing that AGI is impossible. If AGI is impossible, natural intelligent is either impossible or non-physical, but Penrose’s argument seems be that computing is insufficient for AGI, not that AGI is impossible.
    - Retra 8y ago
      Even then, much of his argument is that there must be something "quantum" happening in the human brain, but he apparently fails to notice that a transistor is a quantum device or otherwise articulate why a mechanical object cannot possibly do all the quantum things a neuron can presumably do. Or why a computer model of that process would never be sufficient to emulate it. Half his arguments are misrepresentations of other people's positions and vague pseudo-mathematical conclusions masquerading as indisputable fact. All-in-all, that book is a big nothing.
      - yters 8y ago
        I agree with your synopsis. Penrose raises interesting questions, but his answers are not very convincing. But then again, no materialist answer to his question is very convincing. Which gives us two options: 1. ignore the question by labeling it nonsensical 2. expand our range of hypotheses to include immaterial answers
        Retra 8y ago
- posterboy 8y ago
  In philosophy, one opinion is against the notion of the more fundamental question. I see that as institutional philosophy handing off its responsibility, quite paradoxically, because the argument is directed against basal sciences (bio, chem etc.) which give phil a run for its money.

yters 8y ago

Every such paper I've seen assumes AGI is possible, and is only concerned with the how question. Alternatively, it talks about 'qualia' and 'consciousness' which are not well defined enough to answer the question whether AGI is possible. If you've seen any papers addressing the more fundamental question in a quantitative manner I'd be interested to see a link.

vkou 8y ago
> Every such paper I've seen assumes AGI is possible, and is only concerned with the how question. Human brains exist, human brains are AGI, human brains are manufactured on a daily basis, ergo, it is in theory possible to manufacture an AGI.
- yters 8y ago
  How do you know human brains are AGI?
  - feanaro 8y ago
    Define AGI.
    - yters 8y ago
      Reducible to a Turing machine.
      - feanaro 8y ago
        That doesn't sound like a complete definition of the term "AGI", unless you mean that anything reducible to a Turing machine is an AGI. In any case, I'm not sure why the term "artificial general intelligence" should be constrained to Turing machines. Nothing about it implies a Turing machine; just that it possesses intelligence and is artificially manufactured.
jackpirate 8y ago
Roger Penrose is a pretty famous mathematician who has a side-hobby of arguing that AGI is impossible. I believe his most famous work in this vein is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind, but he has a handful of others as well. His arguments are pretty well grounded in both math and physics. I wouldn't describe the work as "quantitative", but it's probably about as quantitative as is possible at this point.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Roger Penrose is a pretty famous mathematician who has a side-hobby of arguing that AGI is impossible. If AGI is impossible, natural intelligent is either impossible or non-physical, but Penrose’s argument seems be that computing is insufficient for AGI, not that AGI is impossible.
  - Retra 8y ago
    Even then, much of his argument is that there must be something "quantum" happening in the human brain, but he apparently fails to notice that a transistor is a quantum device or otherwise articulate why a mechanical object cannot possibly do all the quantum things a neuron can presumably do. Or why a computer model of that process would never be sufficient to emulate it. Half his arguments are misrepresentations of other people's positions and vague pseudo-mathematical conclusions masquerading as indisputable fact. All-in-all, that book is a big nothing.
    - yters 8y ago
      I agree with your synopsis. Penrose raises interesting questions, but his answers are not very convincing. But then again, no materialist answer to his question is very convincing. Which gives us two options: 1. ignore the question by labeling it nonsensical 2. expand our range of hypotheses to include immaterial answers
      - Retra 8y ago
posterboy 8y ago
In philosophy, one opinion is against the notion of the more fundamental question. I see that as institutional philosophy handing off its responsibility, quite paradoxically, because the argument is directed against basal sciences (bio, chem etc.) which give phil a run for its money.