3 ms·

I take it as a given that some kind of computation in the brain is responsible for human intelligence, so the only question is how difficult is it to replicate

I take it as a given that some kind of computation in the brain is responsible for human intelligence, so the only question is how difficult is it to replicate that computation? There are hints that it might not be as difficult as it first appears: - in general, brains are not evolved specifically for intelligence but rather proprioception. ie. in most animals, brains are primarily a control system for the body. - the marginal difference between a human and the closest primate is small in absolute terms (apes also have a necortex), but the difference in intelligence is huge. This implies that large parts of the brain are just scaffolding and is not necessarily required for "intelligence" - human brains are subject to extreme design constraints - it must work on almost no energy, redundant enough to function even with half of it missing, and compact enough to fit through a narrow opening. These things must have a design cost. - human brains use neurons because they are the only tools available to an eukaryotic organism. From a de novo perspective, there's no reason to believe that this is the only or best way to approach the problem. If we add this up, it seems to me that computer-based AI has the potential to be more efficient than human brains (in terms of flops) and may ultimately not require much computation at all in comparison. We still don't know enough about the brain to guess at the properties of the algorithm that the brain is running. But it's precisely because we don't know that we can't rule out that it's something simple. Given that extremely simple algorithms, scaled up, are already superhuman on a number of ML benchmarks, I think there is a good chance that general cognition is something tractable.

pmg102 6y ago
Do you mean underlies instead of belies? I'm having trouble parsing the meaning of your first sentence.
- Jack000 6y ago
  ah yes that's what I meant
simonh 6y ago
>I take it as a given that some kind of computation in the brain is responsible for human intelligence... Roger Penrose argues that human intelligence can't be a computation because we can arrive at true conclusions even though they are not formally provable. Consistent logical systems can't do that as proved by Goedel. My answer to that is, there's no reason to suppose human mental processes are formally consistent, and there's no reason why AI computer systems have to be formally consistent either. I just wanted to address that objection because I agree completely with your arguments. Aside from that, Chiang's arguments if true would make Deep Blue and Alpha Zero impossible. Clearly we can make computer systems that are dramatically better at solving many problems than ourselves. For Chiang's arguments to carry any force, he'd have to show why general intelligence is an exception to this very extensively demonstrated capability.
- jqpabc123 6y ago
  ... and there's no reason why AI computer systems have to be formally consistent either. There is no reason why an inconsistent AI system should be considered reliable either. Formal consistency is baked into the design of modern computer hardware. A computer that is not formally consistent at the hardware level is random and thus not very practical. Likewise at the software level, the only alternative to formal consistency is randomness. Which may provide an answer but with no real assurance of accuracy or correctness. It may be possible to obtain a correct answer to very specific problems from random logic through iteration and testing --- but a lot of time, effort and energy will almost certainly be wasted on wrong ones. Once again, not terribly promising on a practical AGI level.
- benlivengood 6y ago
  > Roger Penrose argues that human intelligence can't be a computation because we can arrive at true conclusions even though they are not formally provable. Tarski proved that it's impossible to prove truth within the same system anyway, so this isn't a strong objection and is in fact subtly incorrect. Humans don't arrive at "true" conclusions either, we just fail to find contradictions and call it good enough. Probabilistic reasoning is just as powerful in practice as tractable computations.

pmg102 6y ago

Do you mean underlies instead of belies? I'm having trouble parsing the meaning of your first sentence.

Jack000 6y ago
ah yes that's what I meant

simonh 6y ago

>I take it as a given that some kind of computation in the brain is responsible for human intelligence... Roger Penrose argues that human intelligence can't be a computation because we can arrive at true conclusions even though they are not formally provable. Consistent logical systems can't do that as proved by Goedel. My answer to that is, there's no reason to suppose human mental processes are formally consistent, and there's no reason why AI computer systems have to be formally consistent either. I just wanted to address that objection because I agree completely with your arguments. Aside from that, Chiang's arguments if true would make Deep Blue and Alpha Zero impossible. Clearly we can make computer systems that are dramatically better at solving many problems than ourselves. For Chiang's arguments to carry any force, he'd have to show why general intelligence is an exception to this very extensively demonstrated capability.

jqpabc123 6y ago
... and there's no reason why AI computer systems have to be formally consistent either. There is no reason why an inconsistent AI system should be considered reliable either. Formal consistency is baked into the design of modern computer hardware. A computer that is not formally consistent at the hardware level is random and thus not very practical. Likewise at the software level, the only alternative to formal consistency is randomness. Which may provide an answer but with no real assurance of accuracy or correctness. It may be possible to obtain a correct answer to very specific problems from random logic through iteration and testing --- but a lot of time, effort and energy will almost certainly be wasted on wrong ones. Once again, not terribly promising on a practical AGI level.
benlivengood 6y ago
> Roger Penrose argues that human intelligence can't be a computation because we can arrive at true conclusions even though they are not formally provable. Tarski proved that it's impossible to prove truth within the same system anyway, so this isn't a strong objection and is in fact subtly incorrect. Humans don't arrive at "true" conclusions either, we just fail to find contradictions and call it good enough. Probabilistic reasoning is just as powerful in practice as tractable computations.