11 ms·
An amazing stride in computing power. I'm not convinced that the issue is really about more hardware. While more hardware will definitely be useful once we un
by program_whiz 7y ago
An amazing stride in computing power. I'm not convinced that the issue is really about more hardware. While more hardware will definitely be useful once we understand AI, we still don't have a fundamental understanding of how AGI works. There seem to be more open questions than solved ones. I think what we have now is best described as:
"Given a well stated problem with a known set of hypotheses, a metric that indicates progress towards the correct answer, and enough data to statistically model this hypothesis space, we can efficiently search for the local optimum hypothesis."
I'm not sure doing that faster is going to really "create" AGI out of thin air, but it may be necessary once we understand how it can be done (it may be an exponential time algo that requires massive hardware to execute).
- narrator 7y agoExponential time algos aren't really practical on any hardware except quantum computers, and only for algorithms that benefit from quantum speedup such as the quantum fourier transform[1]. The quantum fourier transform goes from O(n2^n) in a classical computer to O(n^2) in a quantum computer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Fourier_transform
- yters 7y agoIf AGI is a halting oracle, then hardware performance is irrelevant.
- gridlockd 7y agoWhat's there to understand? We know how intelligence "happened". We just need to build a few million human-sized brains, attach the universe, and simulate a few billion years of evolution. Whatever comes out of that could just be called "AGI" by definition.
- yters 7y agoWe don't know that's how intelligence happened. That's just speculation based on materialist assumptions. Intelligence is most likely immaterial, i.e. abstract concepts, free will, mathematics, consciousness, etc. In which case, it's beyond anything in this physical universe.
- gbrown 7y ago[Citation Needed]
- dnadler 7y agoThat's precisely the point, right?
- gbrown 7y agoThe above poster was making magical assertions as if they were well established without presenting evidence.
- yters 7y agoThe evidence is literally the very things by which we perceive all other scientific evidence: consciousness, abstract thought, mathematics. All three are clearly non physical. People have to make up elaborate, incoherent explanations to try and explain how they are physical. The fact it is so hard, even impossible, to do shows the items are not physical.
- gbrown 7y agoConsciousness is clearly nonphysical? No offense, but that's simply nonsense. Why is consciousness modified by drugs? Why can consciousness be damaged by physical trauma? When you can interact with something in the physical world, that is a pretty strong indication that you're dealing with a physical phenomenon In fact, it's not even clear what a "non-physical" phenomenon is if you drill deep enough. The existance of abstractions doesn't change granular reality. For example, a neural network implemented on a computer is highly abstracted, but still implemented on physical silicon. I suggest you look up the philisophical history of dualism - you're a bit behind.
- yters 7y agoIf I turn off your computer you cannot respond to me. Does that mean you are your computer?
- sanxiyn 7y agoI mean, say, photosynthesis also happened by evolution. There is still a lot to understand about photosynthesis, and we do understand now, although it took decades of research.
- gridlockd 7y agoSure, but we understand enough so that we can recreate photosynthesis in a lab. There are many drugs which do work, but we don't know exactly how they work. The point is, it's likely not a necessary precondition to understand AGI in order to create it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]