4 ms·

> AGI might be philosophically impossible given that we do not seem to have a proven, accepted definition of GI Strange argument. Just cos we can't define it d

> AGI might be philosophically impossible given that we do not seem to have a proven, accepted definition of GI Strange argument. Just cos we can't define it doesn't preclude its existence. Once (pre modern chemistry) no-one knew what water actually was, but water unquestionably existed.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
water exists, and you can see it, GI exists by definition and you cannot see it, there are millions of arguments as to what GI is and you cannot point to some GI and have everyone agree yes, that is GI but we just differ on what it is made of, even in ancient times you could point to water and say that is water and everyone who argued about the origins of water would still agree with you, yes that is water. So how do you presume to make something when no one agrees what that thing is?
- zasdffaa 5y ago
  You conflate 'existence of x' with 'common agreement of existence of x'. Black holes existed decades/centuries ago but (from memory) there was no agreement they actually existed until gravity waves were detected just recently.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    you evidently conflate people walking around saying General intelligence exists with any sort of agreement as to what comprises general intelligence. The common agreement with the existence of General intelligence is actually a belief in its existence and not any sort of common agreement as to how to recognize general intelligence when encountered. Indeed, there are people who do not agree that it exists. I believe it exists, or close enough that it doesn't matter much, but that does not mean I can define it. In this it is actually closer to religious belief than science, people believe in God but they cannot really define what God is without falling into paradox (I do not believe in God in case you are going to misinterpret what I write and say that I do) In short, there has been no precise definition of general intelligence therefore when you make it you cannot confirm that you have made it. This does raise the ridiculous and theoretical possibility that you could make it, believe you had made it, be correct you had made it, but still have people say you did not make it, or even you make it but not believe that you did. But as a general rule I think having an agreed on definition of something, for example what is gold, and then making it, allows us to say yes you have made gold, but having a thing where everyone says I believe in it and I know it when I see it, will, when you make it, end up with no less certainty as to if it can be made or not as when you first started. Furthermore there are logical arguments that suggest that a General Intelligence will not be great enough to define itself, that is to say we as humans can not define the level of intelligence we possess with great enough understanding that we could be certain that we had achieved it in any machine we built. Given that it is perhaps impossible to precisely define general intelligence then it would be as impossible to make it. I can see however I am going in circles here, so, as a final parting example if you have some object, like a diamond perhaps, and no knowledge of how diamonds are formed and nobody else in the world has any sort of agreement on how they are formed, would you be able to make them? I mean you could go mine them from the earth, but not make them, and you would not be able to make them until you knew their precise composition.
    - zasdffaa 5y ago
      This may be a terminological disagreement rather than something fundamental. You said > ... AGI might be philosophically impossible given that we do not seem to have a proven, accepted definition of GI. That says x might be impossible to achieve if we don't know what x actually is. I disagree. Now if you'd said > ... AGI might be philosophically impossible to recognise given that we do not seem to have a proven, accepted definition of GI. Then yes, I'm with you - perhaps we can both agree that it could be created, and exist in reality, but we are unlikely to get consensus amongst everyone that it has been achieved, thus permanently leaving open the question of whether we've 'got there' or not. Can we agree on that?
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        yes, although I find it unlikely that.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

water exists, and you can see it, GI exists by definition and you cannot see it, there are millions of arguments as to what GI is and you cannot point to some GI and have everyone agree yes, that is GI but we just differ on what it is made of, even in ancient times you could point to water and say that is water and everyone who argued about the origins of water would still agree with you, yes that is water. So how do you presume to make something when no one agrees what that thing is?

zasdffaa 5y ago
You conflate 'existence of x' with 'common agreement of existence of x'. Black holes existed decades/centuries ago but (from memory) there was no agreement they actually existed until gravity waves were detected just recently.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  you evidently conflate people walking around saying General intelligence exists with any sort of agreement as to what comprises general intelligence. The common agreement with the existence of General intelligence is actually a belief in its existence and not any sort of common agreement as to how to recognize general intelligence when encountered. Indeed, there are people who do not agree that it exists. I believe it exists, or close enough that it doesn't matter much, but that does not mean I can define it. In this it is actually closer to religious belief than science, people believe in God but they cannot really define what God is without falling into paradox (I do not believe in God in case you are going to misinterpret what I write and say that I do) In short, there has been no precise definition of general intelligence therefore when you make it you cannot confirm that you have made it. This does raise the ridiculous and theoretical possibility that you could make it, believe you had made it, be correct you had made it, but still have people say you did not make it, or even you make it but not believe that you did. But as a general rule I think having an agreed on definition of something, for example what is gold, and then making it, allows us to say yes you have made gold, but having a thing where everyone says I believe in it and I know it when I see it, will, when you make it, end up with no less certainty as to if it can be made or not as when you first started. Furthermore there are logical arguments that suggest that a General Intelligence will not be great enough to define itself, that is to say we as humans can not define the level of intelligence we possess with great enough understanding that we could be certain that we had achieved it in any machine we built. Given that it is perhaps impossible to precisely define general intelligence then it would be as impossible to make it. I can see however I am going in circles here, so, as a final parting example if you have some object, like a diamond perhaps, and no knowledge of how diamonds are formed and nobody else in the world has any sort of agreement on how they are formed, would you be able to make them? I mean you could go mine them from the earth, but not make them, and you would not be able to make them until you knew their precise composition.
  - zasdffaa 5y ago
    This may be a terminological disagreement rather than something fundamental. You said > ... AGI might be philosophically impossible given that we do not seem to have a proven, accepted definition of GI. That says x might be impossible to achieve if we don't know what x actually is. I disagree. Now if you'd said > ... AGI might be philosophically impossible to recognise given that we do not seem to have a proven, accepted definition of GI. Then yes, I'm with you - perhaps we can both agree that it could be created, and exist in reality, but we are unlikely to get consensus amongst everyone that it has been achieved, thus permanently leaving open the question of whether we've 'got there' or not. Can we agree on that?
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      yes, although I find it unlikely that.