3 ms·

I disagree. Machine AGI does not have to be based on the same foundations as biological intelligence.

semi-extrinsic 2y ago
Sure, that's OK. But taking a step back, how can we be close to solving one system, yet far away from solving another system that is a milion times simpler in every metric?
- gizmo 2y ago
  We cannot perfectly replicate how real life worms behave because we don't have the necessary training data. We can create AI worms based on fake behavioral data, of course, but that will not result in prefect AI replicas of real world worms. We do have untold terabytes of the written word and that's sufficient to bootstrap intelligence with. It turns out that going to space, splitting the atom, and creating general superintelligence is easier than understanding insect behavior or replicating exactly how a bumblebee flies. Our intuitions about the relative difficulty of unsolved scientific questions are pretty much useless. Some seemingly easy things are in fact impossibly difficult and the inverse is true as well.
Jabrov 2y ago
Very relevant quote from the article: > In my view comparing Ai’s cognitive, creative or intellectual powers to those of the human brain is not especially helpful. Think of the car. Humans can’t run as fast as horses. But we can build machines that far outpace them. We do not achieve this by imitation. We don’t engineer mechanical legs and hooves of the kind that took evolution 34 million years of tinkering and modification from eohippus to the present day. We go a completely different way and we come up with something that doesn’t at all exist in nature: the wheel. And instead of a mechanical heart and mechanical muscles Karl Benz offers us the internal combustion engine and crankshaft. Ditto with flying, and travelling across or under the waves. The commonly held idea that the best engineering mimics nature is largely misguided. Yes, we look sometimes look to the natural world for inspiration but in the big things, structurally, we go our own way. And as a result we can fly higher and faster than birds, move over land quicker than a cheetah, swim over and under the water faster and further than a salmon or a whale and so on.
eikenberry 2y ago
I agree that they do not, but our current AIs are based on neural nets/brain structure, I.E. biological intelligence, and so the comparison seem valid.

Sure, that's OK. But taking a step back, how can we be close to solving one system, yet far away from solving another system that is a milion times simpler in every metric?

gizmo 2y ago
We cannot perfectly replicate how real life worms behave because we don't have the necessary training data. We can create AI worms based on fake behavioral data, of course, but that will not result in prefect AI replicas of real world worms. We do have untold terabytes of the written word and that's sufficient to bootstrap intelligence with. It turns out that going to space, splitting the atom, and creating general superintelligence is easier than understanding insect behavior or replicating exactly how a bumblebee flies. Our intuitions about the relative difficulty of unsolved scientific questions are pretty much useless. Some seemingly easy things are in fact impossibly difficult and the inverse is true as well.

Jabrov 2y ago

Very relevant quote from the article: > In my view comparing Ai’s cognitive, creative or intellectual powers to those of the human brain is not especially helpful. Think of the car. Humans can’t run as fast as horses. But we can build machines that far outpace them. We do not achieve this by imitation. We don’t engineer mechanical legs and hooves of the kind that took evolution 34 million years of tinkering and modification from eohippus to the present day. We go a completely different way and we come up with something that doesn’t at all exist in nature: the wheel. And instead of a mechanical heart and mechanical muscles Karl Benz offers us the internal combustion engine and crankshaft. Ditto with flying, and travelling across or under the waves. The commonly held idea that the best engineering mimics nature is largely misguided. Yes, we look sometimes look to the natural world for inspiration but in the big things, structurally, we go our own way. And as a result we can fly higher and faster than birds, move over land quicker than a cheetah, swim over and under the water faster and further than a salmon or a whale and so on.

eikenberry 2y ago

I agree that they do not, but our current AIs are based on neural nets/brain structure, I.E. biological intelligence, and so the comparison seem valid.