5 ms·

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 simulati

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?
    - CrazyStat 5y ago
      Do uncomputable functions actually "exist" in reality in any meaningful sense, or are they just mathematical abstractions?
      - doganulus 5y ago
        You need to start with the assumption that an infinite set exists (Axiom of Infinity) for uncomputable functions (and other weird mathematical things). Such concepts cannot appear in a finite universe.
      - Isinlor 5y ago
- jmull 5y ago
  I’m still thinking there may be a religious angle to this somewhere. It’s so full of unquestioned unstated assumptions and pseudo-analysis.
  - MetricExpansion 5y ago
    I think any argument against the possibility of developing AGI is going to have it. The argument has to be either: 1) there’s something non-material about human intelligence (basically, there’s a soul), or 2) something about the processes that created a completely material human intelligence is impossible in principle to reproduce, either implicitly or explicitly. (1) has the obvious religious angle, but (2) tends to be what’s trotted out when (1) is too overly religious. With (2), the usual supporting reason is that the conditions are too complex. The problem is that the fundamental rules are just those of physics, which are “simple”. And we have to remember that the initial conditions of the universe were also “simple” and not intelligently set up in a way that could be predicted to create intelligence. It was just a bunch of initially formless matter evolving over time. By closing the door on even implicit use of physics (which created our own intelligence), which we don’t know enough to rule out completely, there’s the feeling that there’s some kind of magic dust that has to be part of the process or the initial conditions. That would disagree with our current understanding of the laws of physics and early development of the universe. Ultimately, the real motivation is the desire to maintain the feeling that humans are somehow “special” in the universe.

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?
  - CrazyStat 5y ago
    Do uncomputable functions actually "exist" in reality in any meaningful sense, or are they just mathematical abstractions?
    - doganulus 5y ago
      You need to start with the assumption that an infinite set exists (Axiom of Infinity) for uncomputable functions (and other weird mathematical things). Such concepts cannot appear in a finite universe.
    - Isinlor 5y ago
jmull 5y ago
I’m still thinking there may be a religious angle to this somewhere. It’s so full of unquestioned unstated assumptions and pseudo-analysis.
- MetricExpansion 5y ago
  I think any argument against the possibility of developing AGI is going to have it. The argument has to be either: 1) there’s something non-material about human intelligence (basically, there’s a soul), or 2) something about the processes that created a completely material human intelligence is impossible in principle to reproduce, either implicitly or explicitly. (1) has the obvious religious angle, but (2) tends to be what’s trotted out when (1) is too overly religious. With (2), the usual supporting reason is that the conditions are too complex. The problem is that the fundamental rules are just those of physics, which are “simple”. And we have to remember that the initial conditions of the universe were also “simple” and not intelligently set up in a way that could be predicted to create intelligence. It was just a bunch of initially formless matter evolving over time. By closing the door on even implicit use of physics (which created our own intelligence), which we don’t know enough to rule out completely, there’s the feeling that there’s some kind of magic dust that has to be part of the process or the initial conditions. That would disagree with our current understanding of the laws of physics and early development of the universe. Ultimately, the real motivation is the desire to maintain the feeling that humans are somehow “special” in the universe.