29 ms·

I almost like what De Bono says, but some of it just doesn't click. For example: 3. What is obvious in hindsight may be invisible in foresight. There is

I almost like what De Bono says, but some of it just doesn't click. For example: 3. What is obvious in hindsight may be invisible in foresight. There is no magic in creativity. It seems to me the magic of creativity is making your foresight see those invisible things. If there really were no magic, we'd have real AI by now.

randallsquared 15y ago
If there really were no magic, we'd have real AI by now. That's not at all clear. It could well turn out that more processing power than is easily available is necessary to run the experiments that would give us the answers to how intelligence works.
- jackpirate 15y ago
  By virtue of P probably not equaling NP, I think the "more processing power" argument is ridiculous. To think up a new math theorem using exhaustive search of the space is simply unthinkable, no matter how much computing power you have. Some currently unknown form of creativity must be applied to reduce the search space considerably.
  - randallsquared 15y ago
    "new math theorem"? I think it possible that we will not understand intelligence until we can run and tweak intelligent software. Fortunately, we don't have to do anything like an exhaustive search of the space because we have a working example of intelligence that we can copy without having to understand how it works. Doing this will require very large amounts of computing power, but not computronium.
    - jackpirate 15y ago
      Fortunately, we don't have to do anything like an exhaustive search of the space because we have a working example of intelligence that we can copy My point was just that anything besides an exhaustive search of the space is applying some sort of "creativity magic." Also FWIW, I believe that in order to simulate a brain on a computer we will essentially need to know how it works, which we are no where near. That is my opinion as an AI researcher, but there are certainly others who know more than me and disagree.

randallsquared 15y ago

If there really were no magic, we'd have real AI by now. That's not at all clear. It could well turn out that more processing power than is easily available is necessary to run the experiments that would give us the answers to how intelligence works.

jackpirate 15y ago
By virtue of P probably not equaling NP, I think the "more processing power" argument is ridiculous. To think up a new math theorem using exhaustive search of the space is simply unthinkable, no matter how much computing power you have. Some currently unknown form of creativity must be applied to reduce the search space considerably.
- randallsquared 15y ago
  "new math theorem"? I think it possible that we will not understand intelligence until we can run and tweak intelligent software. Fortunately, we don't have to do anything like an exhaustive search of the space because we have a working example of intelligence that we can copy without having to understand how it works. Doing this will require very large amounts of computing power, but not computronium.
  - jackpirate 15y ago
    Fortunately, we don't have to do anything like an exhaustive search of the space because we have a working example of intelligence that we can copy My point was just that anything besides an exhaustive search of the space is applying some sort of "creativity magic." Also FWIW, I believe that in order to simulate a brain on a computer we will essentially need to know how it works, which we are no where near. That is my opinion as an AI researcher, but there are certainly others who know more than me and disagree.