4 ms·

Is this paper any good? The way the abstract makes me wary of the results claimed.

krastanov 7y ago
I only skimmed through it, but I can not take it seriously. They talk about general mathematical proofs, but it feels more like a few very arbitrarily chosen definitions, without addressing the most standard argument ("what is so difficult about simulating a human brain in principle, except for the (not fundamental) problem of having a big computer and precise classical measurements").
johnfactorial 7y ago
It is. It is a thorough study of the necessary components of real human dialogue, and a well-defended claim that there is no model, nor even any existing TYPE of model, which can model human dialogue. Human dialogue, the paper says, is a temporal process, and the two mathematical models for such processes--differential and stochastic--are insufficient. From the paper: "For example, it is not conceivable that we could create a mathematical model that would enable the computation of the appropriate interpretation of interrupted statements, or of statements made by people who are talking over each other, or of the appropriate length of a pause in a conversation, which may depend on context (remembrance dinner or cocktail party), on emotional loading of the situation, on knowledge of the other person’s social standing or dialogue history, or on what the other person is doing – perhaps looking at his phone – when the conversation pauses." Optimists in the comments here have hope for advances in mathematics that would give us a new method for modeling that could be applied. Maybe their hope isn't unfounded. I'm just a dude who read an academic paper. But I did enjoy it.
- marcinzm 7y ago
  >Optimists in the comments here have hope for advances in mathematics that would give us a new method for modeling that could be applied. Maybe their hope isn't unfounded. I'm just a dude who read an academic paper. But I did enjoy it. I'd say most of the arguments in the comments boil down to "human brains do it so the paper's argument requires human brains to work on mechanisms other than non-quantum physics, which is mathematically model-able, which is a strong assumption."
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    As far as I can tell, the strongest assumption around is that, because we can model some physical processes, we can model all physical processes. We have some maths. We haven't solved all of physics. We don't even know if solving all of physics will help us model intelligence. We have no way to know whether, even if we had an accurate model of the function of the brain and of our intelligence, we would be able to run it as a program, and on an actual computer. We know so little about what intelligence is and the dead certainty that, because we have maths, we should be able to reproduce it is just as unfounded as the opposite assumption, championed by the article.
dooglius 7y ago
No

I only skimmed through it, but I can not take it seriously. They talk about general mathematical proofs, but it feels more like a few very arbitrarily chosen definitions, without addressing the most standard argument ("what is so difficult about simulating a human brain in principle, except for the (not fundamental) problem of having a big computer and precise classical measurements").

johnfactorial 7y ago

It is. It is a thorough study of the necessary components of real human dialogue, and a well-defended claim that there is no model, nor even any existing TYPE of model, which can model human dialogue. Human dialogue, the paper says, is a temporal process, and the two mathematical models for such processes--differential and stochastic--are insufficient. From the paper: "For example, it is not conceivable that we could create a mathematical model that would enable the computation of the appropriate interpretation of interrupted statements, or of statements made by people who are talking over each other, or of the appropriate length of a pause in a conversation, which may depend on context (remembrance dinner or cocktail party), on emotional loading of the situation, on knowledge of the other person’s social standing or dialogue history, or on what the other person is doing – perhaps looking at his phone – when the conversation pauses." Optimists in the comments here have hope for advances in mathematics that would give us a new method for modeling that could be applied. Maybe their hope isn't unfounded. I'm just a dude who read an academic paper. But I did enjoy it.

marcinzm 7y ago
>Optimists in the comments here have hope for advances in mathematics that would give us a new method for modeling that could be applied. Maybe their hope isn't unfounded. I'm just a dude who read an academic paper. But I did enjoy it. I'd say most of the arguments in the comments boil down to "human brains do it so the paper's argument requires human brains to work on mechanisms other than non-quantum physics, which is mathematically model-able, which is a strong assumption."
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  As far as I can tell, the strongest assumption around is that, because we can model some physical processes, we can model all physical processes. We have some maths. We haven't solved all of physics. We don't even know if solving all of physics will help us model intelligence. We have no way to know whether, even if we had an accurate model of the function of the brain and of our intelligence, we would be able to run it as a program, and on an actual computer. We know so little about what intelligence is and the dead certainty that, because we have maths, we should be able to reproduce it is just as unfounded as the opposite assumption, championed by the article.

dooglius 7y ago