5 ms·

I think it should be pretty clear at this point that we can at least achieve "generalized AI" to the extent that we as humans have it. There is no reason whatso

by darawk 4y ago

I think it should be pretty clear at this point that we can at least achieve "generalized AI" to the extent that we as humans have it. There is no reason whatsoever to think we can't build a machine at least as intelligent as we are.

cinntaile 4y ago
I don't think there is any scientific consensus around this.
- darawk 4y ago
  All of the arguments against it are completely non-serious. I don't think there are many real AI researchers that disagree with the thesis that it is in principle possible to build a machine as intelligent as a human. There is broad disagreement on how close we are to it, or whether or not the current track that ML research is on is sufficient to get us there.
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    > There is broad disagreement on how close we are to it, or whether or not the current track that ML research is on is sufficient to get us there. So we don't know, it just sounds plausible.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      Exceedingly, overwhelmingly plausible.
  - drdeca 4y ago
    I agree that the arguments for it being impossible are, rather unconvincing. However, I do think there is an important difference between "in principle" and "in practice". I agree that there does not seem to be any fundamental obstacle that would necessarily prevent it. But at the same time, I'm not convinced it will ever be achieved.
    - darawk 4y ago
      Ya, I think that's potentially a reasonable position to take. However, if you wanted to be confident in that view I think you'd need to posit some particular reason it ought to be difficult. I at least can't come up with any convincing specific reasons. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course, but given the amount of progress we've made on tasks we previously believed to be equivalent to general intelligence, it's difficult for me to see any clear reason why it shouldn't be possible sometime in the next century or two. We have a rough idea of the quantity of computation the brain is doing, so either the brain is using computational methods beyond Turing completeness, or the only piece we're missing is the algorithm (since we're within reach of the raw FLOPs). If it's "just" an algorithm that we have to search for, it seems extremely difficult to predict when that may or may not come.

by darawk 4y ago

cinntaile 4y ago

I don't think there is any scientific consensus around this.

darawk 4y ago
All of the arguments against it are completely non-serious. I don't think there are many real AI researchers that disagree with the thesis that it is in principle possible to build a machine as intelligent as a human. There is broad disagreement on how close we are to it, or whether or not the current track that ML research is on is sufficient to get us there.
- cinntaile 4y ago
  > There is broad disagreement on how close we are to it, or whether or not the current track that ML research is on is sufficient to get us there. So we don't know, it just sounds plausible.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Exceedingly, overwhelmingly plausible.
- drdeca 4y ago
  I agree that the arguments for it being impossible are, rather unconvincing. However, I do think there is an important difference between "in principle" and "in practice". I agree that there does not seem to be any fundamental obstacle that would necessarily prevent it. But at the same time, I'm not convinced it will ever be achieved.
  - darawk 4y ago
    Ya, I think that's potentially a reasonable position to take. However, if you wanted to be confident in that view I think you'd need to posit some particular reason it ought to be difficult. I at least can't come up with any convincing specific reasons. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course, but given the amount of progress we've made on tasks we previously believed to be equivalent to general intelligence, it's difficult for me to see any clear reason why it shouldn't be possible sometime in the next century or two. We have a rough idea of the quantity of computation the brain is doing, so either the brain is using computational methods beyond Turing completeness, or the only piece we're missing is the algorithm (since we're within reach of the raw FLOPs). If it's "just" an algorithm that we have to search for, it seems extremely difficult to predict when that may or may not come.