4 ms·
Brilliant observation. And it's even harder than this. The problem is not that we have a problem. The problem is that we have problems. So the solution is not
by sebastianconcpt 7y ago
Brilliant observation.
And it's even harder than this.
The problem is not that we have a problem. The problem is that we have problems. So the solution is not finding a solution to a problem. The solution is finding a metasolution that is valid across time and tribes. Bam! the challenge of being an intelligent being in this universe. No way we can automate that. Only mimic a portion of it and call it intelligence doesn't make it really intelligent.
- carapace 7y agoFWIW, check out the Gödel machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_machine http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/goedelmachine.html http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/goedelmachine.html > No way we can automate that. It's a very very interesting question. Personally I believe that "automaton" is almost the opposite of "being". But that's just me, not science or other authority. Certainly, somewhere between virus and human something comes into being (no pun intended.) I don't know of any non-metaphysical argument that we couldn't find some other way to create non-biological general AI. I think we could genetically engineer human DNA to create wetware G"A"I but I put the "artificial" in quotes to indicate that I'm not saying whether that would count as AI or not. I know of a few efforts to create "Daleks" out of human brain organoids, but I don't think anyone has gone beyond the speculative/hype stage with it so far.
- jacinabox 7y agoI was waiting for somebody to goerdlize that