3 ms·
why does it seem more likely? from an objective standpoint, why is there a higher likelihood for that? I would actually disagree. Extraterrestrial life is esse
by localplume 3y ago
why does it seem more likely? from an objective standpoint, why is there a higher likelihood for that?
I would actually disagree. Extraterrestrial life is essentially guaranteed (statistically) but conlusive evidence is exceptionally difficult and who knows how far away any life would be. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest AGI is possible, let alone ASI. At best they are both equally unlikely in that people are biased by how much science fiction they read, and thats how they attribute likelihood. HN just likes to go on and on about AGI and whatever but its just overhyping as usual
- burnished 3y agoNitpick: Our own intelligence suggests that an artificial general intelligence is possible. First time seeing ASI but, any quality you can attribute to a human has the potential to be replicated by dint of the mechanical nature of our bodies. I'm not saying we'll get there - I don't think 'we' as a culture even really understands what is meant by intelligence - but we know its possible because we exist.
- GTP 3y agoI'm open to the possibility of achieving an artificial intelligence, but for other reasons. Most of the people talking about AGI now are assuming it is possible to achieve that with today's computer architectures, maybe just more powerful than what we have now. But to be fair, the fact that our body is intelligent says very little about the possibility that also a PC could be intelligent, as their inner workings are extremely different. To be sure that a computer can be intelligent, you have either to build a computer AGI and show that it is intelligent or you have to prove that intelligence is computable.
- burnished 3y agoI make no claims about the hardware it would run on, simply that our bodies are evidence that intelligence can be evoked from a system that fits largely inside the human skull, certainly no larger than the human body. That alone is sufficient evidence that the goal of creating a recognizably similar intelligence is not impossible. Also, most of the people talking about AI and intelligence don't know jack from shit. Other people have wondered if the differences between computer hardware traits and brain traits (one has relatively few but highly reliable and completely integrated units, the other is the inverse) is crucial and have been working on neuromorphic hardware. Other groups have focused on modeling and simulating at various levels with the goal of creating medically relevant models (one day), with stunning results in modeling specific neuron's firing behavior, and interesting if not at all medically plausible simulations of the behavior of groups of neurons interacting and performing tasks. Talking about how smart a computer chip can be is irrelevant when the hardware is instead designed to function like neurons do. A simulation of intelligence that performs by doing what a brain does in the way that a brain does it has a strong argument for being akin to intelligence - especially if you construct the simulation such that it must deal with human experiences, such as persistent embodiment in a stimulating environment with multiple competing needs.