5 ms·

This is very nonconvincing to me, because you dance around the core of your own argument, refusing to state it plainly: Why would it be necessary for everything

This is very nonconvincing to me, because you dance around the core of your own argument, refusing to state it plainly: Why would it be necessary for everything intelligent to consist of animated matter? You don't even offer a plausible hypothesis. To me the null hypothesis is that non-organic intelligence is possible --at worst (!!)-- simply by emulating exactly what an intelligent organic entity does (but it seems obvious to me that this approach is likely to be wasteful and inefficient).

jqpabc123 3y ago
Why would it be necessary for everything intelligent to consist of animated matter? It may not be necessary --- but at this point in time, we really don't know enough to state this as a fact. What we do know is that our only working examples of "intelligence" are all organic and mostly analog --- not digital. Suggesting that real "intelligence" is possible without "life" --- is unsupported by any evidence and is a pure leap of faith at this time.
- myrmidon 3y ago
  First, "It doesn't exist already" is an extremely poor argument against the technical feasibility of really anything :P > Suggesting that real "intelligence" is possible without "life" --- is unsupported by any evidence and is a pure leap of faith at this time. Strongly disagree on this; If you accept that brains effect intelligence by selfinteraction accoring to physical laws, then "computability" directly and inevitably follows. And that implies artificial brains are feasible...
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    And that implies artificial brains are feasible... Given enough time, money, effort and energy, anything is *feasible* --- even converting lead into gold. Expecting it to just *emerge* somehow on it's own without any real design or plan or understanding of the scope involved --- that goes way beyond *feasible* or *practical* and heads straight for *magical thinking*.
    - Windchaser 3y ago
      Is anyone expecting it to "just emerge somehow"? This seems strawmanny. There has been an absolute ton of research into figuring out what kind of design/scope is necessary. More planning and research is happening all the time, and architecture is specifically being changed with a mind towards specific new functionalities. It's not haphazard; it's planned. Yes, there is some room for 'emergence' or learning, but that doesn't mean there isn't also a lot of structure and planning. The picture you present of NN research is so far off from what I see actually being done in this field that I'm a little boggled. Are you sure you're in touch with what's actually happening in the field?

jqpabc123 3y ago

Why would it be necessary for everything intelligent to consist of animated matter? It may not be necessary --- but at this point in time, we really don't know enough to state this as a fact. What we do know is that our only working examples of "intelligence" are all organic and mostly analog --- not digital. Suggesting that real "intelligence" is possible without "life" --- is unsupported by any evidence and is a pure leap of faith at this time.

myrmidon 3y ago
First, "It doesn't exist already" is an extremely poor argument against the technical feasibility of really anything :P > Suggesting that real "intelligence" is possible without "life" --- is unsupported by any evidence and is a pure leap of faith at this time. Strongly disagree on this; If you accept that brains effect intelligence by selfinteraction accoring to physical laws, then "computability" directly and inevitably follows. And that implies artificial brains are feasible...
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  And that implies artificial brains are feasible... Given enough time, money, effort and energy, anything is *feasible* --- even converting lead into gold. Expecting it to just *emerge* somehow on it's own without any real design or plan or understanding of the scope involved --- that goes way beyond *feasible* or *practical* and heads straight for *magical thinking*.
  - Windchaser 3y ago
    Is anyone expecting it to "just emerge somehow"? This seems strawmanny. There has been an absolute ton of research into figuring out what kind of design/scope is necessary. More planning and research is happening all the time, and architecture is specifically being changed with a mind towards specific new functionalities. It's not haphazard; it's planned. Yes, there is some room for 'emergence' or learning, but that doesn't mean there isn't also a lot of structure and planning. The picture you present of NN research is so far off from what I see actually being done in this field that I'm a little boggled. Are you sure you're in touch with what's actually happening in the field?