3 ms·
> we need to understand the mechanisms of neural networks at least an order of magnitude better than we currently do The problem seems more fundamental than th
by zamalek 7y ago
> we need to understand the mechanisms of neural networks at least an order of magnitude better than we currently do
The problem seems more fundamental than this. We may understand intelligence, but we do not understand human-like intelligence. Human-like intelligence originates from more than a neural network; there are hormones and other things involved. Possibly even quantum mechanics, in some of the more esoteric explanations.
> The other is we need to understand the problem we are solving.
Indeed, we are asserting that we will soon have a solution (AGI) without first knowing what the problem is (human-like intelligence).
> it's going to be a really random occurrence finding it.
I'm placing my bets on this. Human-like intelligence (and by unavoidable association, experience) is, by definition, subjective. The tool that we use to observe and explain the universe around us is science. We have no such tool for the universe within us.
- hnick 7y agoEven dog-like intelligence would be extremely useful. It's interesting when training a dog. Sometimes you can see the gears turning and know their thought process and conclusion before they do, since we are just much smarter. And other times, they come up with something that makes no sense at all based on their "dog logic". I guess their brain just works differently. Anyway, focusing on simply humans may be short sighted. I often understand systems better by comparing them to similar systems and working out the differences. If anything bears fruit I think it'll be the researchers that are starting small and trying to replicate a worm brain. Then build from there, faster than evolution, because we can.