4 ms·

Strategic competition will be crucial because once one side shows that it is possible others will quickly follow. Do you see any reason that the technology out

Strategic competition will be crucial because once one side shows that it is possible others will quickly follow. Do you see any reason that the technology outlined in the article cannot be implemented by 2025?

yters 7y ago
All the AI technology in the article is promissory technology, i.e. it doesn't exist except by analogy to human intelligence, and specious claims it'll be better than what has come before. What if all AI tech that has come before sucks because there is a fundamental limit to what algorithms can do, and that limit is much less (infinitely less) than what human intelligence can do? There is a fundamental assumption behind all AI research that the human mind can be simulated by a Turing machine, and no one has verified that assumption. AI research is just floating on the materialistic bias that the mind is reducible to the matter in the brain. We could very well have a supernatural soul, and thus the materialistic bias is completely wrong. Thus, I don't see any reason the technology can be implemented by any date.
- ProfHewitt 7y ago
  A Reusable Scalable Intelligent System (e.g. for pain management or dementia management) is not a human equivalent. You didn't give any reason why you think that technology in the preprint cannot be implemented by 2025.
  - yters 7y ago
    To justify the feasibility of the MORI system the preprint draws numerous analogies to human intellectual capabilities like adaptability to a changing information environment and dealing with inconsistent information. Humans can certainly handle these scenarios, but why assume such intellectual capabilities are computable? We have great difficulty emulating any sort of human intellectual ability with computation, with a near zero success rate, and only success in very narrow and highly consistent domains. I don't see any reason why our success rate with AI tech will increase when the domain becomes broad, changes rapidly, and is inconsistent.
- somewhereoutth 7y ago
  Agreed. A Turing machine operates in a discrete countable state space, whereas the human brain requires real numbers for a complete state description. Cantor showed (with the diagonal argument) that real numbers are uncountable - so there are (infinitely many!) real numbers that are unreachable using a Turing machine. My suspicion is that AGI, consciousness, perhaps even the supernatural soul you allude to, can be found only in this unreachable state space. There exists a Cardinality Barrier!
  - yters 7y ago
    Why would the brain require real numbers for a complete state description? Physical reality is discrete and finite, as far as we know.
    - arpa 7y ago
      Every single neuron has many levels of excitement with different ramp-up, cool down, refractory periods just to name a few non-discrete variables. Not accounting for the rest of chemical soup and meyham happening in the nervous system. Thinking that nervous system is discrete and finite is very, very reductionist and wrong, perhaps as if to compare a novel and an alphabet ("why would you need infinite set space to describe all the possible novels? There are only 30 letters in the alphabet").
      - somewhereoutth 7y ago
        Exactly this. To be more precise with your analogy, given a finite alphabet and a finite length for any novel, then in fact the set of all novels is countable (and computable) - but when novels can have (countably) infinite length (or are written using an infinite alphabet?), then the set of novels is uncountable (and indeed by construction correspond to the reals, if my understanding is correct).
        yters 7y ago
        If the set of all novels is an infinite subset of all finite symbol strings, it may not be computable. This is because the set of all halting programs is not computable, even though each halting program is a finite symbol string. So, we could have a set of novels that enumerate the halting programs (best sellers, those!), and since this subset of novels is not computable, then the set of all novels is not computable.

yters 7y ago

All the AI technology in the article is promissory technology, i.e. it doesn't exist except by analogy to human intelligence, and specious claims it'll be better than what has come before. What if all AI tech that has come before sucks because there is a fundamental limit to what algorithms can do, and that limit is much less (infinitely less) than what human intelligence can do? There is a fundamental assumption behind all AI research that the human mind can be simulated by a Turing machine, and no one has verified that assumption. AI research is just floating on the materialistic bias that the mind is reducible to the matter in the brain. We could very well have a supernatural soul, and thus the materialistic bias is completely wrong. Thus, I don't see any reason the technology can be implemented by any date.

ProfHewitt 7y ago
A Reusable Scalable Intelligent System (e.g. for pain management or dementia management) is not a human equivalent. You didn't give any reason why you think that technology in the preprint cannot be implemented by 2025.
- yters 7y ago
  To justify the feasibility of the MORI system the preprint draws numerous analogies to human intellectual capabilities like adaptability to a changing information environment and dealing with inconsistent information. Humans can certainly handle these scenarios, but why assume such intellectual capabilities are computable? We have great difficulty emulating any sort of human intellectual ability with computation, with a near zero success rate, and only success in very narrow and highly consistent domains. I don't see any reason why our success rate with AI tech will increase when the domain becomes broad, changes rapidly, and is inconsistent.
somewhereoutth 7y ago
Agreed. A Turing machine operates in a discrete countable state space, whereas the human brain requires real numbers for a complete state description. Cantor showed (with the diagonal argument) that real numbers are uncountable - so there are (infinitely many!) real numbers that are unreachable using a Turing machine. My suspicion is that AGI, consciousness, perhaps even the supernatural soul you allude to, can be found only in this unreachable state space. There exists a Cardinality Barrier!
- yters 7y ago
  Why would the brain require real numbers for a complete state description? Physical reality is discrete and finite, as far as we know.
  - arpa 7y ago
    Every single neuron has many levels of excitement with different ramp-up, cool down, refractory periods just to name a few non-discrete variables. Not accounting for the rest of chemical soup and meyham happening in the nervous system. Thinking that nervous system is discrete and finite is very, very reductionist and wrong, perhaps as if to compare a novel and an alphabet ("why would you need infinite set space to describe all the possible novels? There are only 30 letters in the alphabet").
    - somewhereoutth 7y ago
      Exactly this. To be more precise with your analogy, given a finite alphabet and a finite length for any novel, then in fact the set of all novels is countable (and computable) - but when novels can have (countably) infinite length (or are written using an infinite alphabet?), then the set of novels is uncountable (and indeed by construction correspond to the reals, if my understanding is correct).
      - yters 7y ago
        If the set of all novels is an infinite subset of all finite symbol strings, it may not be computable. This is because the set of all halting programs is not computable, even though each halting program is a finite symbol string. So, we could have a set of novels that enumerate the halting programs (best sellers, those!), and since this subset of novels is not computable, then the set of all novels is not computable.