4 ms·

First, "It doesn't exist already" is an extremely poor argument against the technical feasibility of really anything :P > Suggesting that real "intelligence" i

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?