3 ms·
I think it is fair to say that "not at all possible" is perhaps too strong. On the potential of certain approaches I am less certain we have or know what we nee
by RandomLensman 4y ago
I think it is fair to say that "not at all possible" is perhaps too strong. On the potential of certain approaches I am less certain we have or know what we need.
But we also have examples of things all around us we cannot make ourselves (e.g., a simple animal or lifeform from scratch).
- CuriouslyC 4y agoExcept that we've already created synthetic genomes: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/science/synthetic-genome-bacteria.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/science/synthetic-genome-... If we can define what "generally intelligent" means in concrete terms, we can absolutely create it. The problem is that we don't have a good understanding/shared idea of what we're trying to achieve. We can create models that can learn to play many different games using the same weights, solve IQ/logic tests and pass the Turing test consistently, but people are going to move the goalposts and say those are just complex mashups of autocomplete and flowcharts. To be honest I don't think AI skeptics are ever going to believe until there's a Skynet trying to exterminate them.
- RandomLensman 4y agoI don't share the view that all that is holding us back from creating AGI is a definition. Btw., that synthetic genome is a long way from making even something like an little nematode. I rather think AGI "idealists" (maybe there is a better word) will forever hold out (any) algorithmic advances as a sign of the immanent creation of AGI proper.