2 ms·
> Proof of impossibility does exist in logic: In logic, sure. But we're not living in a system of formal logic. We're living in a very messy world, full of phy
by danaris 3y ago
> Proof of impossibility does exist in logic:
In logic, sure. But we're not living in a system of formal logic. We're living in a very messy world, full of physics, chemistry, and even (shudder) biology.
Here's the important question:
What would you consider to be sufficient proof that AGI is impossible?
Like, hypothetically. Doesn't even have to be based on any of the current facts on the ground in our universe. What facts or arguments could possibly convince you that this is not something that can ever happen?
If the answer is "nothing that I can think of", then you're asking other people to provide something you can't even define.
(If the answer is "nothing, definitely", then that means AGI is, for you, unfalsifiable, and essentially falls into the same category as religion.)
> Is it possible to create artificial intelligence? Unarguably yes. Is it possible for human-level intelligence to exist? Unarguably yes.
And here, you're falling victim to the ambiguity in human language (or, at least, in English).
"Intelligence" is not a clearly-defined word in this context, and while you seem to be presenting it as meaning the same thing in those two sentences, I would claim that it does not.
In the second sentence, it is clear that it is intended to mean "thinking intelligently, in a manner and to a degree similarly to humans".
In the first sentence, it cannot mean anything about "thinking in the same manner as humans," because you are talking about "artificial intelligences" that have already been created, and none of them think in anything like the same manner as humans. The difference between existing "artificial intelligences" and either humans or a hypothetical AGI is a difference in kind, not in degree, and you (and many others) gloss over that when you talk about "artificial intelligence" in one breath and "human-level intelligence" in the next.
Saying that all we need to do is keep going on the same track we're on with LLMs and similar "AI" programs, and we'll very soon (or ever!) reach AGI, is very like saying all we need to do to solve NP-hard problems in P-time is to throw more hardware at it. Sure, you'll get faster at doing the thing you're doing, but without some hitherto-unforeseen breakthrough (proving P=NP in the latter case; figuring out how to make AGI in the former), you'll never bridge a difference of kind by increasing the degree of effort.
- DirkH 3y ago> what would you consider to be sufficient proof that AGI is impossible? This is trivially easy? People used to believe FTL was possible. Then our understanding of physics changed and we now understand it is an impossible limit to pass. Would you say people who believed FTL was possible before physics research showed it to be impossible were believing something "religious" and "unfalsifiable" ? Please, they believed something totally within respectable epistemic parameters given what they knew at the time. In fact, the speed of light as an upper limit to speed seems very counterintuitive and "silly" at first glance. Why should a limit exist? Sure, it might well be some fact about intelligence that we wont be able to get to AGI ever just by throwing more compute and layers at it for the next few decades or any time soon given current technology. But nobody has come up with a slam-dunk, with empirical backing, that indeed there is some limit and we won't ever get AGI despite current trends. In fact, the opposite has happened and people like Geoffrey Hinton who used to believe AI risk is fanciful and AGI is a long time away has changed his mind, given current trends. We don't have research giving us that FTL limit, so why believe the limit exists? Why do you believe the limit exists? Or do you believe the probability is so low that we shouldn't worry? Ok, what probability do you place on AGI being created in the next 100 years and what would you have to see such that your probability crosses some threshold that it makes sense to worry about it? (PS: If aliens suddenly arrive and they have completely alien psychologies such that when we discuss our relative intelligences it makes sense to talk about it in kind and not degree, I really don't think anyone is going to care about this distinction. What's important is how well can these aliens achieve their goals relative to us. And if they can achieve any goal of theirs that comes in conflict with our goals then we can reasonably say that are more intelligent than us)
- nradov 3y agoGeoffrey Hinton is a fool. Despite his academic credentials he is deeply ignorant of basic technology and his predictions are not to be taken seriously. https://www.futurehealth.live/blog/2022/4/18/ai-that-disrupts-radiology-wont-read-xrays https://www.futurehealth.live/blog/2022/4/18/ai-that-disrupt...