4 ms·

Why do you clam up so hard against the possibility that there’s progress and potential on computers learning? It’s because, if you admit there is even a slight

by rytill 6y ago

Why do you clam up so hard against the possibility that there’s progress and potential on computers learning? It’s because, if you admit there is even a slight possibility of progress being made, or future potential, suddenly you’re in the other camp - because it’s suddenly quite important to think about the ramifications. And you have self-categorized that you are not a part of all that mumbo-jumbo. So, retroactively, you have to think there is no possibility. It is demonstrably false that no progress is being made. I can type `imagine “a bluebird”` and my computer generates one. Many people listen to AI generated music now. More still are directed to artists they like by one. Spot is incredible. Compared to 10 years ago we are in a different world of progress here. It might take a while, but it’s coming.

jqpabc123 6y ago
Why do you clam up so hard against the possibility that there’s progress and potential on computers learning? The fact that you feel compelled to ask that question suggests to me that you won't approve of the answer. What currently passes for "learning" is mostly just data collection and pattern matching --- as strictly prescribed by software. This is certainly useful but any sign of "intelligence" in this process still resides in the mind of the software developer --- not the computer. Not only do we not know how to build truly "intelligent" software, we don't know if it's even possible. https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/ https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/
- rytill 6y ago
  Wouldn’t it be more predictive to think in terms of capabilities to track rate of improvement? You’re never going to see any improvement by your metric if you don’t want to, it’s unfalsifiable. Your second statement (if it’s possible) sounds like a “no true intelligence” argument. It’s definitely possible since we exist but might take any number of years. Your first statement (don’t know how to build it): We don’t need to completely understand intelligence to create it. We need to create conditions from which it can arise. I’m not saying we will completely not understand it either! Just that a partial state of understanding like what we are working with permanently, may be enough. And some people do have ideas about how to do this. Intelligence is anti-formal-understanding. People have formal models of intelligence and they’re totally impractical. “True” intelligence has messy heuristics everywhere and was evolved naturally.
  - jqpabc123 6y ago
    We don’t need to completely understand intelligence to create it. We need to create conditions from which it can arise. So you really have no idea if this will work but you have faith. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem suggests this may not be possible within the confines of a binary logic Turing machine; i.e. a modern computer. See my reference.
    - Viliam1234 6y ago
      From your reference: > his result shows that either (i) the human mind is not a Turing machine or (ii) there are certain unsolvable mathematical problems. Well, I choose option (ii). Some problems, such as the halting problem, are unsolveable. Furthermore, for any set of axioms, there are problems undecidable with that set of axioms. This entire proof is based on "artificial intelligence is not possible, because it could not solve some mathematical problems". But the fact is that humans also can't solve some mathematical problems, and they exist regardless. You could have an artificial intelligence that is million times smarter than humans, and still can't solve some extremely abstract mathematical problem (that humans can't solve either). So what?
    - rytill 6y ago
      No, I expect this to occur with high probability for the reasons I stated, and my rebuttal would be similar to the other reply to this comment by Viliam1234.
- benlivengood 6y ago
  > Not only do we not know how to build truly "intelligent" software, we don't know if it's even possible. Theoretically, we do know how to build intelligent agents, e.g. AIXI. My bet is on something like [1] for the logic and [2] as the decision theory for a computable equivalent. Humans aren't even generally intelligent in the same way as AIXI (and to be fair AIXI requires sufficient perception and outputs to be effective, but the choice is not as hard-wired as humans are); we are very environment dependent and need augmentation with tools, education, etc. in order to make intelligent decisions. [1] https://intelligence.org/2016/09/12/new-paper-logical-induction/ https://intelligence.org/2016/09/12/new-paper-logical-induct... [2] https://intelligence.org/2017/10/22/fdt/ https://intelligence.org/2017/10/22/fdt/

by rytill 6y ago

jqpabc123 6y ago

Why do you clam up so hard against the possibility that there’s progress and potential on computers learning? The fact that you feel compelled to ask that question suggests to me that you won't approve of the answer. What currently passes for "learning" is mostly just data collection and pattern matching --- as strictly prescribed by software. This is certainly useful but any sign of "intelligence" in this process still resides in the mind of the software developer --- not the computer. Not only do we not know how to build truly "intelligent" software, we don't know if it's even possible. https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/ https://iep.utm.edu/lp-argue/

rytill 6y ago
Wouldn’t it be more predictive to think in terms of capabilities to track rate of improvement? You’re never going to see any improvement by your metric if you don’t want to, it’s unfalsifiable. Your second statement (if it’s possible) sounds like a “no true intelligence” argument. It’s definitely possible since we exist but might take any number of years. Your first statement (don’t know how to build it): We don’t need to completely understand intelligence to create it. We need to create conditions from which it can arise. I’m not saying we will completely not understand it either! Just that a partial state of understanding like what we are working with permanently, may be enough. And some people do have ideas about how to do this. Intelligence is anti-formal-understanding. People have formal models of intelligence and they’re totally impractical. “True” intelligence has messy heuristics everywhere and was evolved naturally.
- jqpabc123 6y ago
  We don’t need to completely understand intelligence to create it. We need to create conditions from which it can arise. So you really have no idea if this will work but you have faith. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem suggests this may not be possible within the confines of a binary logic Turing machine; i.e. a modern computer. See my reference.
  - Viliam1234 6y ago
    From your reference: > his result shows that either (i) the human mind is not a Turing machine or (ii) there are certain unsolvable mathematical problems. Well, I choose option (ii). Some problems, such as the halting problem, are unsolveable. Furthermore, for any set of axioms, there are problems undecidable with that set of axioms. This entire proof is based on "artificial intelligence is not possible, because it could not solve some mathematical problems". But the fact is that humans also can't solve some mathematical problems, and they exist regardless. You could have an artificial intelligence that is million times smarter than humans, and still can't solve some extremely abstract mathematical problem (that humans can't solve either). So what?
  - rytill 6y ago
    No, I expect this to occur with high probability for the reasons I stated, and my rebuttal would be similar to the other reply to this comment by Viliam1234.
benlivengood 6y ago
> Not only do we not know how to build truly "intelligent" software, we don't know if it's even possible. Theoretically, we do know how to build intelligent agents, e.g. AIXI. My bet is on something like [1] for the logic and [2] as the decision theory for a computable equivalent. Humans aren't even generally intelligent in the same way as AIXI (and to be fair AIXI requires sufficient perception and outputs to be effective, but the choice is not as hard-wired as humans are); we are very environment dependent and need augmentation with tools, education, etc. in order to make intelligent decisions. [1] https://intelligence.org/2016/09/12/new-paper-logical-induction/ https://intelligence.org/2016/09/12/new-paper-logical-induct... [2] https://intelligence.org/2017/10/22/fdt/ https://intelligence.org/2017/10/22/fdt/