3 ms·
> We're trying to get machines to think, but we only have the barest understanding of how we, as humans, think... But thinking we can create "AGI" without first
by mitthrowaway2 3y ago
> We're trying to get machines to think, but we only have the barest understanding of how we, as humans, think... But thinking we can create "AGI" without first increasing our understanding of "wet" neural nets is the height of hubris.
That depends on the landscape of the solution space. If the techniques that work much better than anything else happen to be the same techniques used within our own brains, then we might find them, through aggressive experimentation and exploration, before we even realize that it's also how our own brains work too.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoWe do in fact know that whatever makes the brains tick, it must be something 1) simple enough for the extremely dumb, brute-force optimizer that is evolution to stumble on it, 2) incrementally improvable by the same mechanism, and 3) conferring some kind of advantage at every step. Those are requirements for some feature to evolve.
- bratbag 3y ago3 is not required. Multiple steps with no negatives is sufficient.