7 ms·

The paper is full-on nonsense. I’m surprised someone wasted their time writing it and you probably shouldn’t waste your time reading it. In the part I read it

by jmull 5y ago

The paper is full-on nonsense. I’m surprised someone wasted their time writing it and you probably shouldn’t waste your time reading it. In the part I read it claims we can’t develop AI because we can’t accurately model full reality. There’s no argument about what the connection there is, it’s just stated. Kind of obviously, if we assume engaging with reality is necessary to develop intelligence, an artificial intelligence could do so in a similar way we non-artificial ones do, right?

dane-pgp 5y ago
I agree that it is nonsense. To save people the click, here, for example, is how the paper argues that a software system couldn't gain intelligence by simulating an evolutionary process: "But we neither know how to engineer the drive that is built into all animate complex systems, nor do we know how to mimic evolutionary pressure, which we do not understand and cannot model (outside highly artificial conditions such as a Petri dish). In fact, if we already knew how to emulate evolution, we would in any case not need to do this in order to create intelligent life, because the complexity level of intelligent life is lower than that of evolution."
- simonh 5y ago
  They wrote another paper on this topic, the summary of which is that an AI capable of human level conversations is impossible because: "This is (1) because there are no traditional explicitly designed mathematical models that could be used as a starting point for creating such programs; and (2) because even the sorts of automated models generated by using machine learning, which have been used successfully in areas such as machine translation, cannot be extended to cope with human dialogue. If this is so, then we can conclude that a Turing machine also cannot possess AGI, because it fails to fulfil a necessary condition thereof." https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05833 https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05833 In other words it can't ever be done because we haven't done it yet. QED. How stuff like this gets to come out of U Buffalo is beyond me. At first I suspected it might have come out of a religious think tank, but no.
  - The_rationalist 5y ago
    What is the mathematical model used for designing linux or chromium or any kind of hyper-complex software? None, there is no need for a specific mathematical models in general and it's very cringe to claim otherwise. Sure mathematical models can help in the specific and in the general but there is no set of open problems in mathematics that lead to an impossibility of making AGI. Sure p!= np but it would be ridiculous to think that brains can bypass algorithmic complexity. The real problem is that we haven't found the winning lottery ticket software and this software spoiler alert is not at all only made of neural networks
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    >If this is so, then we can conclude that a Turing machine also cannot possess AGI, because it fails to fulfil a necessary condition thereof. If your conclusion implies the existence of computation beyond Turing machines, you should probably find an example or check your assumptions.
    - simonh 5y ago
      My conclusion or theirs? I’m not sure what you mean.
      - Stupulous 5y ago
        I'm responding to their claim in agreement with you.
    - User23 5y ago
      By definition the computable functions are those that can be computed by a Turing machine or equivalent apparatus, so talking about "computation beyond Turing machines" is incoherent. However, uncomputable functions not only exist, but are the overwhelming majority of functions. This suggests that at least some aspects of reality might only be accurately described by uncomputable functions. How could uncomputable functions exist in an entirely computable reality?
      - 5y ago
amelius 5y ago
Is it though? A creature living in a 4 dimensional world might argue that an AI that was brought up in a 3d world would never truly grasp 4 dimensions. This could be true. So why wouldn't it hold for other aspects where the model is incomplete?
cscurmudgeon 5y ago
You are getting it backwards. There are two flimsy arguments for machine intelligence from Hunter and Brooks. The paper is poking holes in that.
- mcguire 5y ago
  It's not doing a very good job.
  - cscurmudgeon 5y ago
    It is doing a job as good as the original arguments.
- jmull 5y ago
  That’s not an accurate characterization. E.g., they address Brook’s definition of basic arthropod intelligence, and are positive about it. > We then summarise the highly useful definition of basic (arthropod) intelligence proposed by Rodney Brooks
User23 5y ago
It's not obvious at all. The following isn't a proof and if I had one I'd be publishing elsewhere. However, I believe it suffices to show the lack of obviousness. All of our models of reality are restricted to computable functions. However, we know that uncomputable functions not only exist, but that nearly all functions are in fact uncomputable. Therefore, it's well within the realm of plausibility that the actual behavior of the universe is governed by uncomputable functions, and we are forever stuck modeling those behaviors with computable approximations. To claim that reality is entirely computable, one has to show how uncomputable functions can exist therein. I wouldn't call this proof, but it strongly suggests to me that the behavior of the system we call reality is uncomputable, and that subsystems thereof also may not be. If what we call human intelligence is one of those uncomputable subsystems, then it's true that computational AI will never achieve it. Nonetheless, we've gotten pretty far with computable approximations, so machine "intelligence" that's close enough for practical purposes doesn't strike me as impossible even if we inhabit an uncomputable reality.
- naasking 5y ago
  > Therefore, it's well within the realm of plausibility that the actual behavior of the universe is governed by uncomputable functions, and we are forever stuck modeling those behaviors with computable approximations. Even if the set of uncomputable functions outnumbers the set of of computable functions, I still don't see how your conclusion follows. The rules that govern a coherent universe are not randomly sampled from the set of all functions.
- Tzt 5y ago
  why not make AI on the same platform as the human brain? what is so exceptional about it, and even if it is an exceptional material, why not just use it?
- simonh 5y ago
  I don’t see why we have to compute all of reality to create an AI anyway. I’m intelligent, to a point, and I’m pretty sure I don’t compute all reality. My neurological processes simply model enough of reality for me to function more or less effectively, that’s all. The article works from the absurd premise that an AI would have to perfectly model its environment, but no living creatures do this. It also decides that we can’t create general AI because we don’t know how to do it. Therefore it’s impossible. Seriously, it’s right there in the conclusion.

by jmull 5y ago

dane-pgp 5y ago

I agree that it is nonsense. To save people the click, here, for example, is how the paper argues that a software system couldn't gain intelligence by simulating an evolutionary process: "But we neither know how to engineer the drive that is built into all animate complex systems, nor do we know how to mimic evolutionary pressure, which we do not understand and cannot model (outside highly artificial conditions such as a Petri dish). In fact, if we already knew how to emulate evolution, we would in any case not need to do this in order to create intelligent life, because the complexity level of intelligent life is lower than that of evolution."

simonh 5y ago
They wrote another paper on this topic, the summary of which is that an AI capable of human level conversations is impossible because: "This is (1) because there are no traditional explicitly designed mathematical models that could be used as a starting point for creating such programs; and (2) because even the sorts of automated models generated by using machine learning, which have been used successfully in areas such as machine translation, cannot be extended to cope with human dialogue. If this is so, then we can conclude that a Turing machine also cannot possess AGI, because it fails to fulfil a necessary condition thereof." https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05833 https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05833 In other words it can't ever be done because we haven't done it yet. QED. How stuff like this gets to come out of U Buffalo is beyond me. At first I suspected it might have come out of a religious think tank, but no.
- The_rationalist 5y ago
  What is the mathematical model used for designing linux or chromium or any kind of hyper-complex software? None, there is no need for a specific mathematical models in general and it's very cringe to claim otherwise. Sure mathematical models can help in the specific and in the general but there is no set of open problems in mathematics that lead to an impossibility of making AGI. Sure p!= np but it would be ridiculous to think that brains can bypass algorithmic complexity. The real problem is that we haven't found the winning lottery ticket software and this software spoiler alert is not at all only made of neural networks
- Stupulous 5y ago
  >If this is so, then we can conclude that a Turing machine also cannot possess AGI, because it fails to fulfil a necessary condition thereof. If your conclusion implies the existence of computation beyond Turing machines, you should probably find an example or check your assumptions.
  - simonh 5y ago
    My conclusion or theirs? I’m not sure what you mean.
    - Stupulous 5y ago
      I'm responding to their claim in agreement with you.
  - User23 5y ago
    By definition the computable functions are those that can be computed by a Turing machine or equivalent apparatus, so talking about "computation beyond Turing machines" is incoherent. However, uncomputable functions not only exist, but are the overwhelming majority of functions. This suggests that at least some aspects of reality might only be accurately described by uncomputable functions. How could uncomputable functions exist in an entirely computable reality?
    - 5y ago

amelius 5y ago

Is it though? A creature living in a 4 dimensional world might argue that an AI that was brought up in a 3d world would never truly grasp 4 dimensions. This could be true. So why wouldn't it hold for other aspects where the model is incomplete?

cscurmudgeon 5y ago

You are getting it backwards. There are two flimsy arguments for machine intelligence from Hunter and Brooks. The paper is poking holes in that.

mcguire 5y ago
It's not doing a very good job.
- cscurmudgeon 5y ago
  It is doing a job as good as the original arguments.
jmull 5y ago
That’s not an accurate characterization. E.g., they address Brook’s definition of basic arthropod intelligence, and are positive about it. > We then summarise the highly useful definition of basic (arthropod) intelligence proposed by Rodney Brooks

User23 5y ago

It's not obvious at all. The following isn't a proof and if I had one I'd be publishing elsewhere. However, I believe it suffices to show the lack of obviousness. All of our models of reality are restricted to computable functions. However, we know that uncomputable functions not only exist, but that nearly all functions are in fact uncomputable. Therefore, it's well within the realm of plausibility that the actual behavior of the universe is governed by uncomputable functions, and we are forever stuck modeling those behaviors with computable approximations. To claim that reality is entirely computable, one has to show how uncomputable functions can exist therein. I wouldn't call this proof, but it strongly suggests to me that the behavior of the system we call reality is uncomputable, and that subsystems thereof also may not be. If what we call human intelligence is one of those uncomputable subsystems, then it's true that computational AI will never achieve it. Nonetheless, we've gotten pretty far with computable approximations, so machine "intelligence" that's close enough for practical purposes doesn't strike me as impossible even if we inhabit an uncomputable reality.

naasking 5y ago
> Therefore, it's well within the realm of plausibility that the actual behavior of the universe is governed by uncomputable functions, and we are forever stuck modeling those behaviors with computable approximations. Even if the set of uncomputable functions outnumbers the set of of computable functions, I still don't see how your conclusion follows. The rules that govern a coherent universe are not randomly sampled from the set of all functions.
Tzt 5y ago
why not make AI on the same platform as the human brain? what is so exceptional about it, and even if it is an exceptional material, why not just use it?
simonh 5y ago
I don’t see why we have to compute all of reality to create an AI anyway. I’m intelligent, to a point, and I’m pretty sure I don’t compute all reality. My neurological processes simply model enough of reality for me to function more or less effectively, that’s all. The article works from the absurd premise that an AI would have to perfectly model its environment, but no living creatures do this. It also decides that we can’t create general AI because we don’t know how to do it. Therefore it’s impossible. Seriously, it’s right there in the conclusion.