4 ms·

No. I'm not. I'm saying there must be simple model primitives that don't involve electromagnetic fields and other strange communication channels that arise out

No. I'm not. I'm saying there must be simple model primitives that don't involve electromagnetic fields and other strange communication channels that arise out of evolution that can be used to model intelligence. We aren't fully clear about what this model of intelligence is, but I'm instinctively sure that it won't have to involve anything as complex as biological neurons that communicate through thousands of different pathways and electromagnetic side effects too.

levitatorius 4y ago
It's fascinating that we have simple primitives or notions of analysis, deduction, causation, yet no artificial system where those features of intelligence emerge on their own.
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  Not true. It's called unsupervised learning.
  - levitatorius 4y ago
    What do you think is missing then? Unsupervised learning == general intelligence?
    - deltaonefour 4y ago
      Not talking about agi. I am doing proof by contradiction. Yes current models of ML are primitive but the reasoning attributes you brought up have been reproduced in ML.. albeit in a primitive way. It is still proof by contradiction, what you say is categorically not true.
skohan 4y ago
But it's a massive leap of faith to assume that the massive and varied array of information processing modalities in the brain are mostly unnecessary, or even that the "important" part of how the brain processes information can be modeled using classical computing at all in a way that's more efficient than biological neurons. That's just a feeling you have.
- deltaonefour 4y ago
  It's not a massive leap of faith at all. Two reasons: 1. We know how natural selection works, and it clearly often produces unnecessary parts for many things. 2. There is physical evidence of evolution creating unnecessary and inefficient parts and components. 1. Natural selection works by randomly creating a fixed set of features both bad and good and then selecting the best one. Thus the features are bounded by randomness. If the random mutation doesn't create the most efficient part then The only thing that can be selected is an inefficient part. This follows that it is VERY possible that many processing modalities of the brain CAN be unnecessary. It is NOT a massive leap of faith. Additionally the selection criteria is simply survival. Not efficiency. As long as the "processing modalities" in the brain aid in survival the selection process does not interfere. Thus all kinds of arbitrary processing modalities both efficient and inefficient can occur so long as the modalities do not detriment survival. Why does stupidity evolve? Well stupid people aren't smart enough to create nuclear bombs to kill themselves. Thus stupidity is a possible trait, similar to how inefficient and unnecessary "processing modalities" are possible, mayhap being stupider aided in survival or didn't contribute anything at all. Just looking at people responding to me on HN, alot of them are pretty stupid (physical evidence). Not pointing out which one, certainly not you. 2. There is (alot) of physical evidence of the above. For example, the wheel is a very efficient way of traveling yet no animal has evolved some form of a wheel. The reasoning is actually more complicated about why a wheel hasn't evolved but the general idea I described above still applies... both natural selection and random mutation were not able to generate the series of intermediate traits required to form wheels. Thus from the reasoning above it is very possible for the brain to evolve with unnecessary and inefficient "processing modalities". Yes this idea did begin as a gut feeling. Subconscious processing is often times correct and logical. It is unwise to constantly mistrust it. It is always wise to analyze these "feelings" in attempt to break down the logic behind why it occurred. What my self analysis tells me is this: Given the fact that MANY of our mathematical models for physical processes involve elegant and straightforward primitives it follows that intelligence will also VERY likely be such a model as well and very likely much more simplified then the human brain.
  - skohan 4y ago
    But biology has also produced systems which are far beyond what we've been able to engineer. For example, look at cellular reproduction. Just imagine if your phone could produce a smaller phone, which would develop into a fully functional phone. And imagine if it could do that using energy which was converted from breaking down fruits and vegetables. These are things that every living thing can do, but it's way beyond the scope of what our technology can accomplish. There are many such miracles of biology. For instance, a gecko's feet act as an adhesive in a way that artificial imitations have not been able to match. Wheels are also great unless they aren't. If we had evolved in an environment where we had lots of smooth roads to roll around on, maybe some animals would have evolved wheels, but instead we evolved legs which are much better for getting around uneven and unpredictable terrain. > Thus from the reasoning above it is very possible for the brain to evolve with unnecessary and inefficient "processing modalities". It's possible, but what evidence do you actually have that this is the case? How do you know the brain hasn't been subject to selection pressures forcing it to have evolved in an extremely efficient fashion? > Subconscious processing is often times correct and logical. Is it? I thought you said your brain was just an inefficient accidental mess? Why would you trust it? Or is your brain maybe incredibly powerful and capable, enough to create abstract and complicated emergent phenomena like intuition, which are so far impossible to understand analytically, or indeed to reproduce artificially? > What my self analysis tells me is this: Given the fact that MANY of our mathematical models for physical processes involve elegant and straightforward primitives it follows that intelligence will also VERY likely be such a model as well and very likely much more simplified then the human brain. This is a massive leap of faith and I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise!

levitatorius 4y ago

It's fascinating that we have simple primitives or notions of analysis, deduction, causation, yet no artificial system where those features of intelligence emerge on their own.

deltaonefour 4y ago
Not true. It's called unsupervised learning.
- levitatorius 4y ago
  What do you think is missing then? Unsupervised learning == general intelligence?
  - deltaonefour 4y ago
    Not talking about agi. I am doing proof by contradiction. Yes current models of ML are primitive but the reasoning attributes you brought up have been reproduced in ML.. albeit in a primitive way. It is still proof by contradiction, what you say is categorically not true.

skohan 4y ago

But it's a massive leap of faith to assume that the massive and varied array of information processing modalities in the brain are mostly unnecessary, or even that the "important" part of how the brain processes information can be modeled using classical computing at all in a way that's more efficient than biological neurons. That's just a feeling you have.

deltaonefour 4y ago
It's not a massive leap of faith at all. Two reasons: 1. We know how natural selection works, and it clearly often produces unnecessary parts for many things. 2. There is physical evidence of evolution creating unnecessary and inefficient parts and components. 1. Natural selection works by randomly creating a fixed set of features both bad and good and then selecting the best one. Thus the features are bounded by randomness. If the random mutation doesn't create the most efficient part then The only thing that can be selected is an inefficient part. This follows that it is VERY possible that many processing modalities of the brain CAN be unnecessary. It is NOT a massive leap of faith. Additionally the selection criteria is simply survival. Not efficiency. As long as the "processing modalities" in the brain aid in survival the selection process does not interfere. Thus all kinds of arbitrary processing modalities both efficient and inefficient can occur so long as the modalities do not detriment survival. Why does stupidity evolve? Well stupid people aren't smart enough to create nuclear bombs to kill themselves. Thus stupidity is a possible trait, similar to how inefficient and unnecessary "processing modalities" are possible, mayhap being stupider aided in survival or didn't contribute anything at all. Just looking at people responding to me on HN, alot of them are pretty stupid (physical evidence). Not pointing out which one, certainly not you. 2. There is (alot) of physical evidence of the above. For example, the wheel is a very efficient way of traveling yet no animal has evolved some form of a wheel. The reasoning is actually more complicated about why a wheel hasn't evolved but the general idea I described above still applies... both natural selection and random mutation were not able to generate the series of intermediate traits required to form wheels. Thus from the reasoning above it is very possible for the brain to evolve with unnecessary and inefficient "processing modalities". Yes this idea did begin as a gut feeling. Subconscious processing is often times correct and logical. It is unwise to constantly mistrust it. It is always wise to analyze these "feelings" in attempt to break down the logic behind why it occurred. What my self analysis tells me is this: Given the fact that MANY of our mathematical models for physical processes involve elegant and straightforward primitives it follows that intelligence will also VERY likely be such a model as well and very likely much more simplified then the human brain.
- skohan 4y ago
  But biology has also produced systems which are far beyond what we've been able to engineer. For example, look at cellular reproduction. Just imagine if your phone could produce a smaller phone, which would develop into a fully functional phone. And imagine if it could do that using energy which was converted from breaking down fruits and vegetables. These are things that every living thing can do, but it's way beyond the scope of what our technology can accomplish. There are many such miracles of biology. For instance, a gecko's feet act as an adhesive in a way that artificial imitations have not been able to match. Wheels are also great unless they aren't. If we had evolved in an environment where we had lots of smooth roads to roll around on, maybe some animals would have evolved wheels, but instead we evolved legs which are much better for getting around uneven and unpredictable terrain. > Thus from the reasoning above it is very possible for the brain to evolve with unnecessary and inefficient "processing modalities". It's possible, but what evidence do you actually have that this is the case? How do you know the brain hasn't been subject to selection pressures forcing it to have evolved in an extremely efficient fashion? > Subconscious processing is often times correct and logical. Is it? I thought you said your brain was just an inefficient accidental mess? Why would you trust it? Or is your brain maybe incredibly powerful and capable, enough to create abstract and complicated emergent phenomena like intuition, which are so far impossible to understand analytically, or indeed to reproduce artificially? > What my self analysis tells me is this: Given the fact that MANY of our mathematical models for physical processes involve elegant and straightforward primitives it follows that intelligence will also VERY likely be such a model as well and very likely much more simplified then the human brain. This is a massive leap of faith and I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise!