6 ms·

We already have an implementation of general AI in our brains that we should eventually be able to mimic. Do you think it will take centuries to figure out how

We already have an implementation of general AI in our brains that we should eventually be able to mimic. Do you think it will take centuries to figure out how it works to understand its algorithm?

llamaz 7y ago
maybe if you could somehow set up sensors in every axon, but the level of analysis you can do with EEG isn't very informative
otabdeveloper4 7y ago
> Do you think it will take centuries to figure out how it works to understand its algorithm? There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the brain is an algorithm at all. This is just you searching for something where it is easiest to look. Note: not everything is an algorithm.
- bermanoid 7y ago
  There is absolutely no reason to think the brain is non-algorithmic in any way, to the extent that you can even define such a nonsense statement without waving your hands about quantum idiocy like Penrose in his senility. The default assumption in science is that any phenomenon is explainable and predictable, not the opposite: you don't get to invert the burden of proof on that front just because it would make your point (intelligence involves non-algorithmic woo) easier to make. Even neuroscientists, who are more pessimistic about the prospect of AGI than anyone else, generally agree that the brain is ultimately not doing anything involving woo (with the exception of a few notably crazy religious ones), and is effectively just a computer. Neuroscientists think it's doing more involved computations than AI researchers hope, but it's still just crunching data.
  - crispyambulance 7y ago
    > quantum idiocy like Penrose in his senility. FWIW, Penrose first posited the idea of QM having some role in consciousness about 30 years ago. I don't remember much about his argument but it seemed plausible and not easily dismissed. BTW Penrose was also a guest on the Rogan experience. Whatever the case, we are still very very very far from understanding the brain when it comes to consciousness. There's room for people to explore possibilities.
  - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
    > The default assumption in science is that any phenomenon is explainable and predictable Two points: a) Not everything is explainable and predictable, and thus under the domain of science. b) There's a huge (maybe infinite?) class of things that are explainable and predictable and yet aren't algorithms. An 'algorithm' is a very specific mathematical concept with a very specific definition. It is quite possible that the brain is explainable and predictable and yet isn't an algorithm. > ...but it's still just crunching data. Only if you expand 'data' to mean every possible physical phenomenon under the sun, which is disingenuous. (Are hormones 'data'? Is electromagnetic radiation? Etc., etc.)
    - bermanoid 7y ago
      I'm saying that the inputs to the brain are data, and the outputs are data. The brain transforms that data in some way, and we have mathematical theorems that say yep, most of the ways data can be transformed can be expressed as an algorithm in any Turing-complete language. If your argument is that the brain leaps past normal computation into hypercomputation or something like that, then you're making an extremely bold claim that doesn't match what we know about the physical universe (there is a long history of arguments about the physical possibility of hypercomputation, and most people don't think it's possible even in theory). I know it sounds expansive to say that everything in the physical world (at least the bits accessible to our experimentation) can be modeled by an algorithm, but that really is the mainstream scientific view, and the edges where people argue about the fringe possibilities most definitely do not apply to the energy/time scales involved with the brain.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  I upvoted you because I believe there is a case for the brain not being an 'algorithm' per se. (like ... here is the code:... ) i.e. can be run on any turing-complete computer. And that is it probably requires on timing and architecture too - lots of algorithms running at the same time and being in sync with themselves, the body, the environment. Also algorithm implies something we can understand and make a complete mental model of. Maybe the brain is more like the big ball of mud software we all hate to work on and want to refactor, except in the brain case, "refactoring" would de-optimise the timing I was referring to earlier and perhaps make the brain not work at all. Let alone we all have a different brain! And the brain is self-modifying hardware/software. I think it taking centuries to understand might be correct!
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    Even so it would be able to be simulated on a Turing complete computer. Albeit a lot slower.
sp332 7y ago
It's taken several millennia so far, so I think taking only a few more centuries is pretty optimistic.
- melling 7y ago
  Clearly knowledge acquisition has accelerated in the last century. it took the same amount of time to learn how to fly. (ie several millennia) Yet, once we did, we broke the sound barrier and made it to the moon within 70 years.
  - sp332 7y ago
    Assuming we have the right tools to understand how the brain works to the point we can reverse-engineer it and recreate it is pretty optimistic. We have gotten better at specific things but assuming that the most recent advances in "knowledge acquisition" are the last we will need is pretty optimistic. Assuming the pace of knowledge acquisition will continue to accelerate long enough to get to that point in less than centuries is pretty optimistic.
    - melling 7y ago
      Can you be a little more specific on the timeline? Centuries can be 200 years to almost 1000. If we look back 200 years to the 1820s, the world looked quite primitive. Railroads and steamships were exciting: https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-railroad-4059935 https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-railroad-4059935 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship
      - sp332 7y ago
        Most of the computing tech we have now is based on fundamental ideas from before 1980. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/432922/significant-new-inventions-in-computing-since-1980 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/432922/significant-new-i... I don't think the pace of new ideas in computing is accelerating right now. If that ability to capture the behavior of a human brain isn't already on the horizon, I wouldn't expect it to be doable in the next 300-400 years. We don't have the mental framework to structure a project like that. On top of that, the engineering to even capture data from a brain to begin with is pretty far off.

We already have an implementation of general AI in our brains that we should eventually be able to mimic. Do you think it will take centuries to figure out how it works to understand its algorithm?

llamaz 7y ago

maybe if you could somehow set up sensors in every axon, but the level of analysis you can do with EEG isn't very informative

otabdeveloper4 7y ago

> Do you think it will take centuries to figure out how it works to understand its algorithm? There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the brain is an algorithm at all. This is just you searching for something where it is easiest to look. Note: not everything is an algorithm.

bermanoid 7y ago
There is absolutely no reason to think the brain is non-algorithmic in any way, to the extent that you can even define such a nonsense statement without waving your hands about quantum idiocy like Penrose in his senility. The default assumption in science is that any phenomenon is explainable and predictable, not the opposite: you don't get to invert the burden of proof on that front just because it would make your point (intelligence involves non-algorithmic woo) easier to make. Even neuroscientists, who are more pessimistic about the prospect of AGI than anyone else, generally agree that the brain is ultimately not doing anything involving woo (with the exception of a few notably crazy religious ones), and is effectively just a computer. Neuroscientists think it's doing more involved computations than AI researchers hope, but it's still just crunching data.
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  > quantum idiocy like Penrose in his senility. FWIW, Penrose first posited the idea of QM having some role in consciousness about 30 years ago. I don't remember much about his argument but it seemed plausible and not easily dismissed. BTW Penrose was also a guest on the Rogan experience. Whatever the case, we are still very very very far from understanding the brain when it comes to consciousness. There's room for people to explore possibilities.
- otabdeveloper4 7y ago
  > The default assumption in science is that any phenomenon is explainable and predictable Two points: a) Not everything is explainable and predictable, and thus under the domain of science. b) There's a huge (maybe infinite?) class of things that are explainable and predictable and yet aren't algorithms. An 'algorithm' is a very specific mathematical concept with a very specific definition. It is quite possible that the brain is explainable and predictable and yet isn't an algorithm. > ...but it's still just crunching data. Only if you expand 'data' to mean every possible physical phenomenon under the sun, which is disingenuous. (Are hormones 'data'? Is electromagnetic radiation? Etc., etc.)
  - bermanoid 7y ago
    I'm saying that the inputs to the brain are data, and the outputs are data. The brain transforms that data in some way, and we have mathematical theorems that say yep, most of the ways data can be transformed can be expressed as an algorithm in any Turing-complete language. If your argument is that the brain leaps past normal computation into hypercomputation or something like that, then you're making an extremely bold claim that doesn't match what we know about the physical universe (there is a long history of arguments about the physical possibility of hypercomputation, and most people don't think it's possible even in theory). I know it sounds expansive to say that everything in the physical world (at least the bits accessible to our experimentation) can be modeled by an algorithm, but that really is the mainstream scientific view, and the edges where people argue about the fringe possibilities most definitely do not apply to the energy/time scales involved with the brain.
quickthrower2 7y ago
I upvoted you because I believe there is a case for the brain not being an 'algorithm' per se. (like ... here is the code:... ) i.e. can be run on any turing-complete computer. And that is it probably requires on timing and architecture too - lots of algorithms running at the same time and being in sync with themselves, the body, the environment. Also algorithm implies something we can understand and make a complete mental model of. Maybe the brain is more like the big ball of mud software we all hate to work on and want to refactor, except in the brain case, "refactoring" would de-optimise the timing I was referring to earlier and perhaps make the brain not work at all. Let alone we all have a different brain! And the brain is self-modifying hardware/software. I think it taking centuries to understand might be correct!
- mrfusion 7y ago
  Even so it would be able to be simulated on a Turing complete computer. Albeit a lot slower.

sp332 7y ago

It's taken several millennia so far, so I think taking only a few more centuries is pretty optimistic.

melling 7y ago
Clearly knowledge acquisition has accelerated in the last century. it took the same amount of time to learn how to fly. (ie several millennia) Yet, once we did, we broke the sound barrier and made it to the moon within 70 years.
- sp332 7y ago
  Assuming we have the right tools to understand how the brain works to the point we can reverse-engineer it and recreate it is pretty optimistic. We have gotten better at specific things but assuming that the most recent advances in "knowledge acquisition" are the last we will need is pretty optimistic. Assuming the pace of knowledge acquisition will continue to accelerate long enough to get to that point in less than centuries is pretty optimistic.
  - melling 7y ago
    Can you be a little more specific on the timeline? Centuries can be 200 years to almost 1000. If we look back 200 years to the 1820s, the world looked quite primitive. Railroads and steamships were exciting: https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-railroad-4059935 https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-railroad-4059935 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship
    - sp332 7y ago
      Most of the computing tech we have now is based on fundamental ideas from before 1980. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/432922/significant-new-inventions-in-computing-since-1980 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/432922/significant-new-i... I don't think the pace of new ideas in computing is accelerating right now. If that ability to capture the behavior of a human brain isn't already on the horizon, I wouldn't expect it to be doable in the next 300-400 years. We don't have the mental framework to structure a project like that. On top of that, the engineering to even capture data from a brain to begin with is pretty far off.