3 ms·

There is no real evidence that computers can be programmed to intelligently invent and act on their own thought processes. All notable AI techniques to date sp

by soup10 7y ago

There is no real evidence that computers can be programmed to intelligently invent and act on their own thought processes. All notable AI techniques to date specify in exhausting detail the thought processes that the AI should execute in carefully constructed algorithms. We're getting closer to the point where we can tell the computer to "think and act like a human" and in more and more domains it succeeds. But we're as far as ever from "think for yourself".

cakoose 7y ago
> All notable AI techniques to date specify in exhausting detail the thought processes that the AI should execute in carefully constructed algorithms. I'm not knowledgeable about AI, but from some of of the game-playing AI research I've read about, it seems like we provide in exhaustive detail the rules and objectives and the AI figures out (though a very resource-hungry process) an "algorithm" (e.g. encoded as a neural network) to play the game well. I'm not saying that's close to human thought, but it seems far beyond having to "specify in exhausting detail the thought processes that the AI should execute in carefully constructed algorithms."
tosh 7y ago
Jürgen Schmidhuber w/ Lex Fridman talk about AI & consciousness: https://youtu.be/3FIo6evmweo https://youtu.be/3FIo6evmweo
empath75 7y ago
Any intelligent process has to emerge from the action of non-intelligent components. Your argument is the same as saying that a hurricane could never form because air molecules do not contain wind, and water molecules do not contain rain.
- balt_s 7y ago
  I'm skeptical of any argument which hinges on the word "emerge" or "emergent". Consider: "consciousness is an emergent property of brains" vs "consciousness is a magical property of brains".
  - empath75 7y ago
    Does ‘macroscopic property’ make you feel better? Like heat, or entropy or any of the many properties in nature that are a consequence of the combined actions of their constituent material. Any other explanation would have to rely on the property being explained existing all the way down to electrons and quarks. Atoms aren’t a liquid, but room temperature water is. At some point, the property of being a liquid emerges through the combined behavior of collections of atoms. We know that people are intelligent, we know that atoms are not. At some point, the property of being intelligent must arise from the combined action of their constituent parts. We have theories about how that happens, but no way to reproduce it as of yet using computers — it may not be possible. But there is no reason in principle that just because computers are comprised of non intelligent components, that they cannot give rise to an intelligent system. Humans are one example where such a thing has happened— I don’t think anyone would suggest that neurons have intelligence and even if you believed that, one certainly can’t believe that electrons and quarks do. Of course one could posit a non physical entity or force which somehow exists in people and does not in machines which gives rise to intelligence, but to say the least that requires a great deal more evidence than we currently have for that before I would accept that as an explanation.
AllegedAlec 7y ago
Just in order to start some discussion: do you believe that intelligence (in the form of creative thought, at least) is substrate dependent?
- a_humble_lurker 7y ago
  I would imagine that it's entirely possible to generate creative thought using computers. Whether or not the thing driving that creative thought also generates consciousness(capability for qualia) is another matter entirely. The simulation of a thing is not the thing itself. Perfectly simulating an apple falling from a tree only generates information about the thing, but the simulation hasn't caused an actual apple to fall from an actual tree. Computers are merely symbol manipulators, and symbols are nothing more than the material used to make them(ink on paper, electrons in a computer, etc...). I suspect that consciousness must follow the same logic -- We should be able to simulate something that looks exactly like creative thought(and probably is, technically), but if that same symbol manipulation results in an actual consciousness being produced in the actual world, then the universe has to be a much stranger place than we already know it to be...
  - AllegedAlec 7y ago
    > Computers are merely symbol manipulators, and symbols are nothing more than the material used to make them(ink on paper, electrons in a computer, etc...). But a brain is also just a symbol manipulator, in essence. All it does is shift electrical current from one place to another.
    - a_humble_lurker 7y ago
      I think a distinction can be made between the two. The brain can manipulate symbols, but it's not clear that it's the symbol manipulation itself that causes consciousness. A computer simulation doesn't actually fire neurons, it manipulates symbols representing neurons(to us) in a way that could be interpreted as firing. Those two things are very different, despite the fact that they both use electricity. Again, there's a difference between a physical thing vs an accurate representation of a thing by other physical means. As a thought experiment, would it be possible to create consciousness using pen and paper calculation? Perform the same calculations by hand, multithread it by using billions of people performing the same symbol manipulation we would have otherwise performed on the computer. I argue all that project would produce is a large stack of paper and ink. I would argue that it's not the act of manipulating symbols that gives rise to consciousness(since it's the only thing the computer and paper methods have in common), rather that something qualitatively different is happening in the brain.

by soup10 7y ago

cakoose 7y ago

> All notable AI techniques to date specify in exhausting detail the thought processes that the AI should execute in carefully constructed algorithms. I'm not knowledgeable about AI, but from some of of the game-playing AI research I've read about, it seems like we provide in exhaustive detail the rules and objectives and the AI figures out (though a very resource-hungry process) an "algorithm" (e.g. encoded as a neural network) to play the game well. I'm not saying that's close to human thought, but it seems far beyond having to "specify in exhausting detail the thought processes that the AI should execute in carefully constructed algorithms."

tosh 7y ago

Jürgen Schmidhuber w/ Lex Fridman talk about AI & consciousness: https://youtu.be/3FIo6evmweo https://youtu.be/3FIo6evmweo

empath75 7y ago

Any intelligent process has to emerge from the action of non-intelligent components. Your argument is the same as saying that a hurricane could never form because air molecules do not contain wind, and water molecules do not contain rain.

balt_s 7y ago
I'm skeptical of any argument which hinges on the word "emerge" or "emergent". Consider: "consciousness is an emergent property of brains" vs "consciousness is a magical property of brains".
- empath75 7y ago
  Does ‘macroscopic property’ make you feel better? Like heat, or entropy or any of the many properties in nature that are a consequence of the combined actions of their constituent material. Any other explanation would have to rely on the property being explained existing all the way down to electrons and quarks. Atoms aren’t a liquid, but room temperature water is. At some point, the property of being a liquid emerges through the combined behavior of collections of atoms. We know that people are intelligent, we know that atoms are not. At some point, the property of being intelligent must arise from the combined action of their constituent parts. We have theories about how that happens, but no way to reproduce it as of yet using computers — it may not be possible. But there is no reason in principle that just because computers are comprised of non intelligent components, that they cannot give rise to an intelligent system. Humans are one example where such a thing has happened— I don’t think anyone would suggest that neurons have intelligence and even if you believed that, one certainly can’t believe that electrons and quarks do. Of course one could posit a non physical entity or force which somehow exists in people and does not in machines which gives rise to intelligence, but to say the least that requires a great deal more evidence than we currently have for that before I would accept that as an explanation.

AllegedAlec 7y ago

Just in order to start some discussion: do you believe that intelligence (in the form of creative thought, at least) is substrate dependent?

a_humble_lurker 7y ago
I would imagine that it's entirely possible to generate creative thought using computers. Whether or not the thing driving that creative thought also generates consciousness(capability for qualia) is another matter entirely. The simulation of a thing is not the thing itself. Perfectly simulating an apple falling from a tree only generates information about the thing, but the simulation hasn't caused an actual apple to fall from an actual tree. Computers are merely symbol manipulators, and symbols are nothing more than the material used to make them(ink on paper, electrons in a computer, etc...). I suspect that consciousness must follow the same logic -- We should be able to simulate something that looks exactly like creative thought(and probably is, technically), but if that same symbol manipulation results in an actual consciousness being produced in the actual world, then the universe has to be a much stranger place than we already know it to be...
- AllegedAlec 7y ago
  > Computers are merely symbol manipulators, and symbols are nothing more than the material used to make them(ink on paper, electrons in a computer, etc...). But a brain is also just a symbol manipulator, in essence. All it does is shift electrical current from one place to another.
  - a_humble_lurker 7y ago
    I think a distinction can be made between the two. The brain can manipulate symbols, but it's not clear that it's the symbol manipulation itself that causes consciousness. A computer simulation doesn't actually fire neurons, it manipulates symbols representing neurons(to us) in a way that could be interpreted as firing. Those two things are very different, despite the fact that they both use electricity. Again, there's a difference between a physical thing vs an accurate representation of a thing by other physical means. As a thought experiment, would it be possible to create consciousness using pen and paper calculation? Perform the same calculations by hand, multithread it by using billions of people performing the same symbol manipulation we would have otherwise performed on the computer. I argue all that project would produce is a large stack of paper and ink. I would argue that it's not the act of manipulating symbols that gives rise to consciousness(since it's the only thing the computer and paper methods have in common), rather that something qualitatively different is happening in the brain.