3 ms·
AGI and human intelligence don't necessarily have to work the same way. While many of us assume that they must be very similar, I don't think there's any basis
by sxg 3y ago
AGI and human intelligence don't necessarily have to work the same way. While many of us assume that they must be very similar, I don't think there's any basis for that assumption.
- swatcoder 3y agoThat's correct that they don't need to work the same way. I would say most people that have earnestly thought about it assume they won't. But given the exponentially greater chemical, biological, and neurological complexity of human brains, the millions of years of evolutionary "pre-training" that they get imbued with, and the years of constant multimodal sensory input required for their culmination in what's called human intelligence, it takes an extremely bold assumption to believe that equivalent ends can be met with a stream of fmadds driving through in an array of transistors. It's hard to overstate how big a gulf there is in both the hardware and software between living systems and what we currently see in our silicon projects. Neural network learning in general and LLM's in particular are like crude paper airplanes compared to the flight capabilities of a dextrous bird. You can kinda squint and see that they both move some distance through the air, and even marvel at it for a bit, but there's a long long long long way to go.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoAnd yet no bird ever broke the sound barrier. Humans make things that exceed anything in nature. Thought will only be another example.
- bomewish 3y agoExceed in some regards but not others right? Like, let’s not imagine the plane is better at being a bird than the bird. It’s an evocative set of associations though. Makes me think we’ll end up creating the Concorde of intelligence but be no closer to understanding how our own works…
- NiloCK 3y agoIt'll explain it to us, at least to the best of our capability, with lots of hand-holding.
- pixl97 3y agoOr it won't and you'll wonder why your molecular constituents are being siphoned off to build things it finds more useful.
- Workaccount2 3y agoIf it sticks my brain in a simulation to keep me occupied, I'm totally ok with this.
- NiloCK 3y agoReminder: a tamagotchi Workaccount2 is not you. A parallel instance of you, no matter how perfect, cannot add to your qualitative experiences or make you less dead.
- hskalin 3y agoI agree that creating something akin to an organic being exceeds capabilities at present. But to be fair we never tried to build a bird, instead we tried to build a machine to fly and we excelled. However I concur that we may end up creating an AI which thinks nothing like us, has no sense of morality, and yet far exceeds us in intelligence. And that would be somewhat unsettling.
- pixl97 3y agoWithout realizing it you're voicing the concerns of the AI doomers. We may build something that far exceeds us in capability, but without us understanding it, or it understanding us. This is the alignment issue.
- bomewish 3y ago
- fuy 3y agoThis basis is our limited data set: we have only 1 example of human level intelligence, so it's natural to assume there's something unique, or at least significant about the way it works.