4 ms·

I believe to create AI, we need to first simulate the universe. It's the only way that makes sense to me apart from some magical algorithm people think will be

by gcau 4y ago

I believe to create AI, we need to first simulate the universe. It's the only way that makes sense to me apart from some magical algorithm people think will be discovered. I'm doubtful we'll reach it in our lifetimes, true AI running on supercomputers, it seems like the final, end all mission. Like switching your Minecraft world from survival to creative mode.

BLKNSLVR 4y ago
I had a similarly nihilistic thought just a couple of days ago. It's like the conundrum among the lines of "a map of sufficient detail ends up being the same size as the terrain being mapped". To know the variables required for "intelligence" we need to recreate the universe in which intelligence came to be.
- Jeema101 4y ago
  I've also thought this, and I wish people would at least approach the subject with a little bit more humility. It did take evolution 3.5 billion years to do it after all, so I'm not sure what makes us think we can do it in a fraction of that time.
colinsane 4y ago
if we could simulate the universe on the meaningful scale to model intelligence. we wouldn’t need artificial intelligences. we could just simulate a detailed scan of a real human and be done with it (ethical issues aside). but there would be a drive to simulate this more efficiently. simulate using a classical model and see if the results match well enough. then the atomic level; then looser and lower-resolution chemical/E&M models, and so on. start compressing the elements being simulated (simplify the environment, prune and rearrange the neurons so long as the thing as a whole still acts the same), and so on. there’s a good chance we can go pretty far before the simplified simulation meaningfully diverges from the true simulation. why can’t this be flipped? start with a simplified model/simulation, and keep adding details until you reach the point of diminishing returns? it’s a reversal of the same search process as above, but if you subscribe to the first approach (do you?), then is the latter approach truly impossible or just difficult in different ways?
dqpb 4y ago
Because quantum mechanics is the only layer of abstraction?

by gcau 4y ago

BLKNSLVR 4y ago

I had a similarly nihilistic thought just a couple of days ago. It's like the conundrum among the lines of "a map of sufficient detail ends up being the same size as the terrain being mapped". To know the variables required for "intelligence" we need to recreate the universe in which intelligence came to be.

Jeema101 4y ago
I've also thought this, and I wish people would at least approach the subject with a little bit more humility. It did take evolution 3.5 billion years to do it after all, so I'm not sure what makes us think we can do it in a fraction of that time.

colinsane 4y ago

if we could simulate the universe on the meaningful scale to model intelligence. we wouldn’t need artificial intelligences. we could just simulate a detailed scan of a real human and be done with it (ethical issues aside). but there would be a drive to simulate this more efficiently. simulate using a classical model and see if the results match well enough. then the atomic level; then looser and lower-resolution chemical/E&M models, and so on. start compressing the elements being simulated (simplify the environment, prune and rearrange the neurons so long as the thing as a whole still acts the same), and so on. there’s a good chance we can go pretty far before the simplified simulation meaningfully diverges from the true simulation. why can’t this be flipped? start with a simplified model/simulation, and keep adding details until you reach the point of diminishing returns? it’s a reversal of the same search process as above, but if you subscribe to the first approach (do you?), then is the latter approach truly impossible or just difficult in different ways?

dqpb 4y ago

Because quantum mechanics is the only layer of abstraction?