6 ms·

> Seventy years later, we are nowhere near insect-level intelligence. That's arguable: For instance, we have the entire connectome of c. elegans mapped out; we

by cr0sh 7y ago

> Seventy years later, we are nowhere near insect-level intelligence. That's arguable: For instance, we have the entire connectome of c. elegans mapped out; we can easily simulate it, and it seems to act the same as the actual nematode. So, in one sense, we are at that level. However, we still have no clue how such a simple system actually works to produce the level of "intelligence" it has. So in that sense, we're not at that level at all. > We certainly have no idea whether the approach we are now taking (statistical clustering, AKA deep learning) is a path that leads to AI or not. One clue we do have: We may not be on the right path with that method; it's something the "grandfather" (or whatever) of AI (Hinton) has mentioned, and which I have stated before about... That is, the fact that we currently have no understanding of the mechanism by which biological neural networks implement anything like "backpropagation". From what we currently understand, as I currently understand it, we have yet to find such a mechanism that would allow for it. It's also one of the leading reasons why our current artificial neural networks consume so much power, as compared to biological systems...

pron 7y ago
> For instance, we have the entire connectome of c. elegans mapped out... So, in one sense, we are at that level. Well, whatever "intelligence" C elegans has, I think everyone would agree that it's far from insect-level; it's microsocopic-nematode-level. But I am not sure a simulation of C elgans rises to the level of "artificial". As you note, we don't understand it yet. But we may have already built systems that are more "intelligent" (whatever that means) than C elegans, and we may have done that decades ago. > From what we currently understand, as I currently understand it, we have yet to find such a mechanism that would allow for it. True, but our path to artificial intelligence may not end up going through neural networks at all. We've not achieved flight by mimicking biological flight. I'm not saying it won't, either, but we cannot say for sure that it will. We really don't know.
synthmeat 7y ago
> We can easily simulate it. To my knowledge, this is nowhere near truth. They got it to wiggle by basically scripting muscle contractions, no neural networks are involved in the process. When you turn on the network, it does nothing. (And I love project, the idea and community behind it.)

by cr0sh 7y ago

pron 7y ago

> For instance, we have the entire connectome of c. elegans mapped out... So, in one sense, we are at that level. Well, whatever "intelligence" C elegans has, I think everyone would agree that it's far from insect-level; it's microsocopic-nematode-level. But I am not sure a simulation of C elgans rises to the level of "artificial". As you note, we don't understand it yet. But we may have already built systems that are more "intelligent" (whatever that means) than C elegans, and we may have done that decades ago. > From what we currently understand, as I currently understand it, we have yet to find such a mechanism that would allow for it. True, but our path to artificial intelligence may not end up going through neural networks at all. We've not achieved flight by mimicking biological flight. I'm not saying it won't, either, but we cannot say for sure that it will. We really don't know.

synthmeat 7y ago

> We can easily simulate it. To my knowledge, this is nowhere near truth. They got it to wiggle by basically scripting muscle contractions, no neural networks are involved in the process. When you turn on the network, it does nothing. (And I love project, the idea and community behind it.)