4 ms·
Agreed. I am also extremely skeptical of AI, but while the paper does a good job at highlighting the problems with AI, the eventual conclusion is not at all wel
by qsort 5y ago
Agreed. I am also extremely skeptical of AI, but while the paper does a good job at highlighting the problems with AI, the eventual conclusion is not at all well-supported.
There's an hidden assumption that complex systems cannot be modeled mathematically at all, but while that can be true right now, there is no fundamental reason why satisfactory models can't be produced at all.
- pfdietz 5y agoAlso, the assumption that mathematically modeling a system is necessary for AI.
- sgt101 5y agoThere is a question as to are the systems of mathematics that human cognition can conceive adequate to represent the processes and mechanisms of human cognition or equivalent systems. Basically - can we write 'ourselves' down and if we can, can we read what we have written.
- simonh 5y agoWe’ve already made computer systems so complex we don’t know precisely how they work. Alpha Zero or GPT-3 for example.
- NineStarPoint 5y agoWe don’t know how they work exactly, but we do know the mathematics that create them. The question is if the systems that generate complex intelligence are too much for humans to create, not just the phenomenon that emerge from those systems.
- simonh 5y agoI see no reason to suspect there is any upper limit, in principle, to the complexity or sophistication of things humans can create. The reason is that we are tool users. We create tools, including mathematical and information processing tools that magnify our abilities. These then enable us to create even more powerful tools, which magnify our abilities even more. Rinse, repeat. There doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to me that this has any theoretical limit. Practical limits maybe, but if dumb evolution can crack the AGI problem clearly it's not beyond practical physical limits.