3 ms·
We don't even understand how the brain functions completely, not even close. Until we have a complete understanding of how our own GI works down to the exact bi
by teqsun 2y ago
We don't even understand how the brain functions completely, not even close. Until we have a complete understanding of how our own GI works down to the exact bio-mechanical level, we can't achieve AGI.
That's the theoretical basis and path for achieving AGI (if it's even possible). I'm tired of all the "we stick enough data in the magic black box blender and ta-da! AGI!"
Every giant technological break-through throughout history has had a massive underpinning of understanding before ever achieving it. And yet, with the AI bubble somehow we're just about to secretly achieve it, but we can't tell you how.
- leesec 2y ago> Until we have a complete understanding of how our own GI works down to the exact bio-mechanical level, we can't achieve AGI. This doesn't make any sense.
- skirmish 2y agoIndeed, e.g. magnetism was known and used in Ancient Greece, yet Wikipedia: "ferromagnetism can be fully explained only using quantum theory. A successful model was developed <...> in 1927".
- ctoth 2y agoWait until you learn about Anesthesia!
- KingFelix 2y agoGood answer!
- skizm 2y agoI'm drawing a blank on the paper and can't find it casually Googling, but there are fairly well understood mathematical models for how neurotransmitters cause neurons to fire or not fire. It is just probabilities when you zoom out enough. One paper modeled part of a rat brain, visual cortex I think, using this by basically coding up some simulated neurons and neurotransmitters, then turned it on. They were able to get the program and the live rat brain to display similar patterns when showing them various images. I feel like this could be a path to GI without "truly" understanding the human brain: make a large enough simulation of the brain and turn it on. I actually do think we understand enough about the nuts and bolts of neuron interaction to achieve this. What we don't understand is where neurons firing turns into consciousness. It seems like it is probably just an emergent property of a complex enough neuron graph.
- philipkglass 2y agoEvery giant technological break-through throughout history has had a massive underpinning of understanding before ever achieving it. Historically, there have been a lot of cases where technological breakthroughs happened first and conceptual understanding followed later. The first industrially useful steam engine was invented in 1712 [1] but the classical thermodynamic relationship between heat and work was not developed until 1824 [2]. There was a vast chemical industry before scientists really understood what atoms were, how many distinct kinds of atoms there are, or how they form molecules. It was only 20th century quantum mechanics that properly describes something as simple as a hydrogen molecule. That didn't prevent chemists from developing complex synthetic chemicals [3]. It did mean that they had to rely more on guesses and experiments than on clear theory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steam_engine#Newcomen_%22atmospheric%22_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_steam_engine#Ne... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Motive_Power_of_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Motive_Powe... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_dye#Chemical_synthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_dye#Chemical_synthesis