8 ms·

This is why the reductionist argument of "your brain is reducible to a computer with inputs/outputs like any other, all we have to do is reimplement it" of AGI

This is why the reductionist argument of "your brain is reducible to a computer with inputs/outputs like any other, all we have to do is reimplement it" of AGI proponents always fell flat to me. It's now becoming clear that we can't just take the brain in isolation, treating the spinal nerve like a PCI-E lane - the gut has to come with it. And if the gut comes with it, all the other organs (skin top of the list) probably do as well. Now to model a human brain, you need to model an entire human, along with all the complexity of the microbiota, interactions of the organs with the environment... it all just falls apart.

saiya-jin 3y ago
Yes you are probably right, but generally I don't get why AGI needs to be 100% mimicking every aspect of human, just better/faster. Like proverbial skynet can have extreme excellence in one/few aspect of general intelligence but can be muted to almost 0 on everything else, say emotions, yet still be falling into AGI behavior and could take over the world. It doesn't need to simulate gut interactions to get there. And I think for such an entity we may be closer to emerging than we like, especially if it can traverse whole internet including this comment and make summaries out of it out of reach to mere mortals.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  > And I think for such an entity we may be closer to emerging than we like Why are people talking about it as if it was a bad thing? If I listen to people everyone seems to be dissatisfied with their life as of now, due to work, politics, society and everything else. If AGI was to arrive it would potentially remove those frustrations, right.
  - haswell 3y ago
    > If AGI was to arrive it would potentially remove those frustrations, right. We don’t really know what happens next. There are optimistic outcomes that AGI could enable, but this tech is ultimately being built and distributed by humans currently deeply beholden to the system that everyone seems dissatisfied with. AGI is not some savior that bursts onto the scene and magically fixes problems. There’s a lot of very messy human work ahead of us if we ever hope to integrate it with society in a way that actually removes those frustrations. And this is not a guaranteed outcome.
  - kagakuninja 3y ago
    We are already facing an AI apocalypse with the primitive tech we have now. AGI will only be worse for humanity. Our current AI tech is built by and for giant corporations and governments (many of which are dystopian). AI will simply accelerate the vast divide between the haves and the have-nots. AI is being used to increase profits of corporations, with no concern for the rest of us. AI will allow the elites to rule with fewer messy humans in the loop, who may disobey orders or have sympathy for their fellow humans. AI will blur the distinction between truth and lies, enabling dystopian regimes undreamt of by writers like Orwell. AI will provide a vast toolset for criminals as well.
  - saiya-jin 3y ago
    We humans are often pretty bad, as agent Smith put 'we are a disease, a virus' if you have purely rational view without any emotions (including being human too and making it personal for example). If you look at the news, horrible trumps positive big time, any day. It may not reflect actual truth on the ground, but AGI scanning internet knows nothing about reality on the street and everything about trending topics and Fox news headlines. I guarantee you you can't have an objective viewpoint on mankind from just watching internet go and the one you get will be more negative than reality. With such conclusions, and capability to collapse our society in a millisecond (it doesn't have to be nukes, it can be subtle subversion of financial and societal system for example), you really want a completely unknown and un-understandable entity to judge all of us?
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      I would imagine AGI would be statistically intelligent though, to be aware that whatever news has is the most negative outliers.
armada651 3y ago
"your brain is reducible to a computer with inputs/outputs like any other, all we have to do is reimplement it" It still is though, you will reach human intelligence by just modeling the brain. The problem is that you probably won't reach an emotionally stable human since you'll be missing all the emotional/hormonal signaling that comes from the rest of the body, but we can emulate that without having to model the full complexity of the gut.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Shortened: Modeling how the brain works is not synonymous with how humans work. We just need to maintain our awareness of that difference. The good news is, it makes replacing humans - trait for trait - far more more complicated.
  - armada651 3y ago
    > The good news is, it makes replacing humans - trait for trait - far more more complicated. I wouldn't take much comfort in that. You can probably reach something that resembles a human by just providing an alternative set of signals. We already do this with the reward mechanism during training and that is proving very effective.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    Why is it good news?
    - Izkata 3y ago
      AI that fully mimicked humans would need time off from work.
      - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
        Plus, all the boredom and the requirement for novelty, plus the surliness. It's all fun and games until ChatGPT is feeling sassy and sarcastic.
kashyapc 3y ago
Also see the "somatic marker hypothesis"[1][2] by neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio. It's about how various internal body "markers" deeply influence decision-making. I first read it in his 1991 book, Descarte's Error. Quoting from here[1]: "Somatic markers" are feelings in the body that are associated with emotions, such as the association of rapid heartbeat with anxiety or of nausea with disgust. According to the hypothesis, somatic markers strongly influence subsequent decision-making. Within the brain, somatic markers are thought to be processed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and the amygdala. [...]" Although, experimental evidence is not as yet as robust as it needs to be. See the "Experimental evidence" and "Criticism" sections here[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis [2] https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3069187 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3069187
mewpmewp2 3y ago
The argument stays the same though. Your body is reducible to an input/output mechanism. In terms of complexity, since we haven't solved brain yet, it doesn't matter that much that there's also other parts of the body involved, as we don't even know the exact complexity of the brain, but the argument stays the same. In theory we are input/output mechanism, possible to emulate if there's enough capacity. But in addition AGI wouldn't require many traits that humans have since it doesn't need the same evolutionary survival mechanisms. It only needs part of it.
- jb1991 3y ago
  In my opinion, a living creature is more than just an input and output mechanism. If I were to think up one way to define consciousness, it would be that it provides output even in the absence of inputs.
  - adrianN 3y ago
    So does a random number generator.
  - _Algernon_ 3y ago
    So does the bias in an artifical neural network. I wouldn't call a ANN conscious just because it has a bias.
  - officeplant 3y ago
    But there is never a lack of input, just varied input.
  - BadCookie 3y ago
    The ability to experience pleasure and pain seems important. If we’re just input/output mechanisms, then why would killing somebody even matter?
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      Why exist at all? Because it’s fun.
Balgair 3y ago
Neuroscientist here: There is no such thing as a mind-body duality. Your body is your mind and your mind is your body. Full stop. We are still in the very infancy of the study of the mind body and brain. We're finally uncovering some of the most basic tools that will serve us for millennia to come. Imagine trying to understand a 2022 Ford F-150 with only a 7/16ths wrench and a flat-head screwdriver: You can get pretty far, but you're not getting anywhere near the cylinders. It's going to take along time to even get the tools to understand the brain. For example: We don't even have all the basic circuit components that the brain has. We have resistors, capacitors, and inductors. All things that the electrical systems of the brain have analogs to (very very roughly, I am simplifying a lot here). But we're missing the memristor. We know the brain has a memristor, it's the synapse, but we don't really have ones to play around with and use as tools. Yes, you can model these things in software. But then you miss out on most of the ugly reality that is hard/wetware; and that's where all the magic happens. But that's just the electrical parts of the nervous system. Most of what is happening is in the electrically dark chemistry. Heck, we can't even agree on what percentage of the brain is glia. Is it 50%, is it 90%? Whose paper should you trust? We don't even have a good census of what is in the damn thing! But of course you can't take the brain in isolation. The inputs and effects on it are still nearly completely unknown to us. And that's not hyperbole either. We really are mostly in the dark as to what effects the brain. Just look at temperature. We know that the rate of firing of neurons goes as T ^ 4. Yes, that's the hypercube of temperature. Even the slightest change in temperature has massive changes to firing rates. How in God's name do any of us function on a hot or cold day!? We haven't the foggiest idea. So again, we're in the absolute infancy of our study of the brain. Fortunately, most of us HNers are going to live to see a lot of progress in this science. It's an exciting time to be alive.
- felixyz 3y ago
  Regular, reasonable person here. > Your body is your mind and your mind is your body. Full stop. This is completely unwarranted judging from the rest of your post ("in the very infancy", "nearly completely unknown", "mostly in the dark", "haven't the foggiest idea"; although I appreciate the frankness). If people made bold statements like "There is no such thing as X" in any other field at a similar stage of development, their claims would be rightly dismissed as pseudoscience. ("There is no such thing as a graviton. Full stop.") Your claim is not a finding of your field of expertise, or any other branch of science. It's metaphysical belief. You're entitled to it. It's a widely shared belief. It might be a belief with a lot going for it. Metaphysical claims are fun! They can be discussed! But I wish people wouldn't confuse them with scientific knowledge.
vacuumcl 3y ago
I don't see why this changes anything. There are some, sort-of intelligent networks of cells in the gut that help in digestion and other processes. Doesn't change the fact that consciousness resides in the brain.
ericmcer 3y ago
Did you read the article? The gut "brain" can just perform it's own functionality independent of the brain. If anything the article raises the concept that organs can function without being regulated by the brain, which would mean the brains purpose is less to regulate the body and is specifically just for performing computations (and doing whatever consciousness is). If I am doing math my skin is not being leveraged to help out.

saiya-jin 3y ago

Yes you are probably right, but generally I don't get why AGI needs to be 100% mimicking every aspect of human, just better/faster. Like proverbial skynet can have extreme excellence in one/few aspect of general intelligence but can be muted to almost 0 on everything else, say emotions, yet still be falling into AGI behavior and could take over the world. It doesn't need to simulate gut interactions to get there. And I think for such an entity we may be closer to emerging than we like, especially if it can traverse whole internet including this comment and make summaries out of it out of reach to mere mortals.

mewpmewp2 3y ago
> And I think for such an entity we may be closer to emerging than we like Why are people talking about it as if it was a bad thing? If I listen to people everyone seems to be dissatisfied with their life as of now, due to work, politics, society and everything else. If AGI was to arrive it would potentially remove those frustrations, right.
- haswell 3y ago
  > If AGI was to arrive it would potentially remove those frustrations, right. We don’t really know what happens next. There are optimistic outcomes that AGI could enable, but this tech is ultimately being built and distributed by humans currently deeply beholden to the system that everyone seems dissatisfied with. AGI is not some savior that bursts onto the scene and magically fixes problems. There’s a lot of very messy human work ahead of us if we ever hope to integrate it with society in a way that actually removes those frustrations. And this is not a guaranteed outcome.
- kagakuninja 3y ago
  We are already facing an AI apocalypse with the primitive tech we have now. AGI will only be worse for humanity. Our current AI tech is built by and for giant corporations and governments (many of which are dystopian). AI will simply accelerate the vast divide between the haves and the have-nots. AI is being used to increase profits of corporations, with no concern for the rest of us. AI will allow the elites to rule with fewer messy humans in the loop, who may disobey orders or have sympathy for their fellow humans. AI will blur the distinction between truth and lies, enabling dystopian regimes undreamt of by writers like Orwell. AI will provide a vast toolset for criminals as well.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  We humans are often pretty bad, as agent Smith put 'we are a disease, a virus' if you have purely rational view without any emotions (including being human too and making it personal for example). If you look at the news, horrible trumps positive big time, any day. It may not reflect actual truth on the ground, but AGI scanning internet knows nothing about reality on the street and everything about trending topics and Fox news headlines. I guarantee you you can't have an objective viewpoint on mankind from just watching internet go and the one you get will be more negative than reality. With such conclusions, and capability to collapse our society in a millisecond (it doesn't have to be nukes, it can be subtle subversion of financial and societal system for example), you really want a completely unknown and un-understandable entity to judge all of us?
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    I would imagine AGI would be statistically intelligent though, to be aware that whatever news has is the most negative outliers.

armada651 3y ago

"your brain is reducible to a computer with inputs/outputs like any other, all we have to do is reimplement it" It still is though, you will reach human intelligence by just modeling the brain. The problem is that you probably won't reach an emotionally stable human since you'll be missing all the emotional/hormonal signaling that comes from the rest of the body, but we can emulate that without having to model the full complexity of the gut.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Shortened: Modeling how the brain works is not synonymous with how humans work. We just need to maintain our awareness of that difference. The good news is, it makes replacing humans - trait for trait - far more more complicated.
- armada651 3y ago
  > The good news is, it makes replacing humans - trait for trait - far more more complicated. I wouldn't take much comfort in that. You can probably reach something that resembles a human by just providing an alternative set of signals. We already do this with the reward mechanism during training and that is proving very effective.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  Why is it good news?
  - Izkata 3y ago
    AI that fully mimicked humans would need time off from work.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      Plus, all the boredom and the requirement for novelty, plus the surliness. It's all fun and games until ChatGPT is feeling sassy and sarcastic.

kashyapc 3y ago

Also see the "somatic marker hypothesis"[1][2] by neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio. It's about how various internal body "markers" deeply influence decision-making. I first read it in his 1991 book, Descarte's Error. Quoting from here[1]: "Somatic markers" are feelings in the body that are associated with emotions, such as the association of rapid heartbeat with anxiety or of nausea with disgust. According to the hypothesis, somatic markers strongly influence subsequent decision-making. Within the brain, somatic markers are thought to be processed in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and the amygdala. [...]" Although, experimental evidence is not as yet as robust as it needs to be. See the "Experimental evidence" and "Criticism" sections here[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_marker_hypothesis [2] https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3069187 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3069187

mewpmewp2 3y ago

The argument stays the same though. Your body is reducible to an input/output mechanism. In terms of complexity, since we haven't solved brain yet, it doesn't matter that much that there's also other parts of the body involved, as we don't even know the exact complexity of the brain, but the argument stays the same. In theory we are input/output mechanism, possible to emulate if there's enough capacity. But in addition AGI wouldn't require many traits that humans have since it doesn't need the same evolutionary survival mechanisms. It only needs part of it.

jb1991 3y ago
In my opinion, a living creature is more than just an input and output mechanism. If I were to think up one way to define consciousness, it would be that it provides output even in the absence of inputs.
- adrianN 3y ago
  So does a random number generator.
- _Algernon_ 3y ago
  So does the bias in an artifical neural network. I wouldn't call a ANN conscious just because it has a bias.
- officeplant 3y ago
  But there is never a lack of input, just varied input.
- BadCookie 3y ago
  The ability to experience pleasure and pain seems important. If we’re just input/output mechanisms, then why would killing somebody even matter?
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    Why exist at all? Because it’s fun.

Balgair 3y ago

Neuroscientist here: There is no such thing as a mind-body duality. Your body is your mind and your mind is your body. Full stop. We are still in the very infancy of the study of the mind body and brain. We're finally uncovering some of the most basic tools that will serve us for millennia to come. Imagine trying to understand a 2022 Ford F-150 with only a 7/16ths wrench and a flat-head screwdriver: You can get pretty far, but you're not getting anywhere near the cylinders. It's going to take along time to even get the tools to understand the brain. For example: We don't even have all the basic circuit components that the brain has. We have resistors, capacitors, and inductors. All things that the electrical systems of the brain have analogs to (very very roughly, I am simplifying a lot here). But we're missing the memristor. We know the brain has a memristor, it's the synapse, but we don't really have ones to play around with and use as tools. Yes, you can model these things in software. But then you miss out on most of the ugly reality that is hard/wetware; and that's where all the magic happens. But that's just the electrical parts of the nervous system. Most of what is happening is in the electrically dark chemistry. Heck, we can't even agree on what percentage of the brain is glia. Is it 50%, is it 90%? Whose paper should you trust? We don't even have a good census of what is in the damn thing! But of course you can't take the brain in isolation. The inputs and effects on it are still nearly completely unknown to us. And that's not hyperbole either. We really are mostly in the dark as to what effects the brain. Just look at temperature. We know that the rate of firing of neurons goes as T ^ 4. Yes, that's the hypercube of temperature. Even the slightest change in temperature has massive changes to firing rates. How in God's name do any of us function on a hot or cold day!? We haven't the foggiest idea. So again, we're in the absolute infancy of our study of the brain. Fortunately, most of us HNers are going to live to see a lot of progress in this science. It's an exciting time to be alive.

felixyz 3y ago
Regular, reasonable person here. > Your body is your mind and your mind is your body. Full stop. This is completely unwarranted judging from the rest of your post ("in the very infancy", "nearly completely unknown", "mostly in the dark", "haven't the foggiest idea"; although I appreciate the frankness). If people made bold statements like "There is no such thing as X" in any other field at a similar stage of development, their claims would be rightly dismissed as pseudoscience. ("There is no such thing as a graviton. Full stop.") Your claim is not a finding of your field of expertise, or any other branch of science. It's metaphysical belief. You're entitled to it. It's a widely shared belief. It might be a belief with a lot going for it. Metaphysical claims are fun! They can be discussed! But I wish people wouldn't confuse them with scientific knowledge.

vacuumcl 3y ago

I don't see why this changes anything. There are some, sort-of intelligent networks of cells in the gut that help in digestion and other processes. Doesn't change the fact that consciousness resides in the brain.

ericmcer 3y ago

Did you read the article? The gut "brain" can just perform it's own functionality independent of the brain. If anything the article raises the concept that organs can function without being regulated by the brain, which would mean the brains purpose is less to regulate the body and is specifically just for performing computations (and doing whatever consciousness is). If I am doing math my skin is not being leveraged to help out.