4 ms·

The first humans were kinda dumb. Yet by interacting with the world and each other, humans got smart. I wonder if neural network instances can interact with a s

The first humans were kinda dumb. Yet by interacting with the world and each other, humans got smart. I wonder if neural network instances can interact with a simulated environment and each other, they could become smart enough for practical purposes. Kinda like alpha go zero but with "life".

Pompidou 3y ago
> The first humans were kinda dumb How can you assert this ? Do you have any evidence?
- jojobas 3y ago
  Can't tell if you're joking or serious. In the latter case, the first humans (H. Habilis) had about 1/2 of H. Sapiens brain to work with, and a much smaller fraction of neocortex. If that doesn't satisfy you, let's say I was speaking about some sort of human ancestor before that, which would have been about as dumb as chimps, unless you require proof of their dumbness as well.
  - Zanni 3y ago
    Not your original objector, but ... I was willing to accept that early humans are dumb, but your explanation relies on evolution and not social interaction.
    - Andrex 3y ago
      Exactly. Humans didn't learn their way out of only having half a brain, more the opposite.
    - junofan 3y ago
      We know their brains didn’t grow much after birth, unlike humans, which also suggests faster maturity akin to living apes and likely less social support for extended adolescence.
    - jojobas 3y ago
      Humans didn't evolve knowledge, they evolved the capacity to get more knowledge. All the new knowledge they got they figured out from the environment.
  - theduder99 3y ago
    Hard to imagine anyone believes these prehuman theories. Just look at the h hablis wiki page to see 90% of it is pure speculation and debated.
- Andrex 3y ago
  Even tracing it back to the origin of Homo erectus, the line would still be too blurry. I don't think "the first humans" can actually mean anything in a science-based discussion.
ahmedfromtunis 3y ago
Conversion is essential, but so is the interaction with the real world. If a bunch of AIs started discussing with each other, and learning from each other, without validation, things can go wrong very easily. I bet a lot of people thought that strapping a pair of feahterry wing was all that's needed to fly. This "knowledge" could've passed from one person to another through discussion. But it only took one (or more) person to actually try it in the real world to learn that, no, that doesn't work like that. AI communities (as in communities of AIs talking to each other) might be one filled with the most outrageous "conspiracy theories", that may sound plausible but have no substance.

Pompidou 3y ago

> The first humans were kinda dumb How can you assert this ? Do you have any evidence?

jojobas 3y ago
Can't tell if you're joking or serious. In the latter case, the first humans (H. Habilis) had about 1/2 of H. Sapiens brain to work with, and a much smaller fraction of neocortex. If that doesn't satisfy you, let's say I was speaking about some sort of human ancestor before that, which would have been about as dumb as chimps, unless you require proof of their dumbness as well.
- Zanni 3y ago
  Not your original objector, but ... I was willing to accept that early humans are dumb, but your explanation relies on evolution and not social interaction.
  - Andrex 3y ago
    Exactly. Humans didn't learn their way out of only having half a brain, more the opposite.
  - junofan 3y ago
    We know their brains didn’t grow much after birth, unlike humans, which also suggests faster maturity akin to living apes and likely less social support for extended adolescence.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    Humans didn't evolve knowledge, they evolved the capacity to get more knowledge. All the new knowledge they got they figured out from the environment.
- theduder99 3y ago
  Hard to imagine anyone believes these prehuman theories. Just look at the h hablis wiki page to see 90% of it is pure speculation and debated.
Andrex 3y ago
Even tracing it back to the origin of Homo erectus, the line would still be too blurry. I don't think "the first humans" can actually mean anything in a science-based discussion.

ahmedfromtunis 3y ago

Conversion is essential, but so is the interaction with the real world. If a bunch of AIs started discussing with each other, and learning from each other, without validation, things can go wrong very easily. I bet a lot of people thought that strapping a pair of feahterry wing was all that's needed to fly. This "knowledge" could've passed from one person to another through discussion. But it only took one (or more) person to actually try it in the real world to learn that, no, that doesn't work like that. AI communities (as in communities of AIs talking to each other) might be one filled with the most outrageous "conspiracy theories", that may sound plausible but have no substance.