4 ms·

This doesn't feel like it will age well.

by keikobadthebad 2y ago

082349872349872 2y ago
we do GI with about 100W, so it's obviously computationally tractable
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  We do GI with about 100W --- but we don't do it "computationally". We still don't know exactly how the human brain works. But what we do know is that it is analog and not digital. Some speculate it may even be quantum in nature. And we know that quantum can address problems that are intractable with digital computation. For all we know, "intelligence" could be an inherent attribute of the universe that is being manifested somehow in the human brain.
  - mindcrime 2y ago
    FWIW, "computational" doesn't have to mean "digital computer". Analog computers are a thing, and depending on who you ask quantum computers are also (or will be someday).
    - jqpabc123 2y ago
      FWIW, "computational" doesn't have to mean "digital computer". In the context of existing AI "computational" models, it does. It's all we've got.
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        Sorry, I had no clue about that context; in my world "computationally tractable" only means polynomial time.
      - mindcrime 2y ago
        Well... analog computing is already a thing. In fact, broadly speaking we can say that analog computing predates digital computing. At least in terms of gaining widespread popularity. And people have absolutely experimented with / researched doing AI on analog computers.[1][2][3][4] Not necessarily LLM's mind you, but I don't see any reason to think that this conversation pertains exclusively to those. And even if we're talking about things that don't exist yet (let's just say "quantum computers" since they're still sort of experimental).. if one is making a universal claim[5] like "AGI is intrinsically computationally intractable" you can't just ignore the possibility of computing techniques that don't exist yet, but could. You need to show that it. cannot. be. done.[6] And my feeling is that the authors of the linked paper have not done so. [1]: https://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/InTheNews/1989_CD1.pdf https://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/InTheNews/1989_CD1.pdf [2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.06365 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.06365 [3]: http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/psgz/boser-92.ps.gz http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/psgz/boser-92.ps.gz [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sorin-Draghici-2/publication/12518159_Neural_Networks_in_Analog_Hardware_-_Design_and_Implementation_Issues/links/02bfe51158e569ccf3000000/Neural-Networks-in-Analog-Hardware-Design-and-Implementation-Issues.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sorin-Draghici-2/public... [5]: and just to reiterate, this is part of my problem with this paper. In places they seem to be making that stronger universal claim, in other places they seem to be making a weaker claim that is constrained by some notion of "in the near term." Since it's hard to say what they're even arguing, it's hard to put much stock in their work to my way of thinking. [6]: OK, to be fair "intractable" can be interpreted as just "really really hard" not necessarily "impossible". But in this context, saying "we've proved that Thing X is really hard" doesn't seem like a very interesting claim, so I interpret the authors' intent as being to say that it's effectively impossible. But I'll allow that I could be misinterpreting their claim.
        082349872349872 2y ago
        Re: [6] allow me to note that Kleene (1951) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM704.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memorand... investigates what sorts of things it's possible to encode with wetware, and claims their mathematical equivalent would be huge (if still finite) state machines.

This doesn't feel like it will age well.

082349872349872 2y ago

we do GI with about 100W, so it's obviously computationally tractable

jqpabc123 2y ago
We do GI with about 100W --- but we don't do it "computationally". We still don't know exactly how the human brain works. But what we do know is that it is analog and not digital. Some speculate it may even be quantum in nature. And we know that quantum can address problems that are intractable with digital computation. For all we know, "intelligence" could be an inherent attribute of the universe that is being manifested somehow in the human brain.
- mindcrime 2y ago
  FWIW, "computational" doesn't have to mean "digital computer". Analog computers are a thing, and depending on who you ask quantum computers are also (or will be someday).
  - jqpabc123 2y ago
    FWIW, "computational" doesn't have to mean "digital computer". In the context of existing AI "computational" models, it does. It's all we've got.
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      Sorry, I had no clue about that context; in my world "computationally tractable" only means polynomial time.
    - mindcrime 2y ago
      Well... analog computing is already a thing. In fact, broadly speaking we can say that analog computing predates digital computing. At least in terms of gaining widespread popularity. And people have absolutely experimented with / researched doing AI on analog computers.[1][2][3][4] Not necessarily LLM's mind you, but I don't see any reason to think that this conversation pertains exclusively to those. And even if we're talking about things that don't exist yet (let's just say "quantum computers" since they're still sort of experimental).. if one is making a universal claim[5] like "AGI is intrinsically computationally intractable" you can't just ignore the possibility of computing techniques that don't exist yet, but could. You need to show that it. cannot. be. done.[6] And my feeling is that the authors of the linked paper have not done so. [1]: https://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/InTheNews/1989_CD1.pdf https://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/InTheNews/1989_CD1.pdf [2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.06365 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.06365 [3]: http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/psgz/boser-92.ps.gz http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/psgz/boser-92.ps.gz [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sorin-Draghici-2/publication/12518159_Neural_Networks_in_Analog_Hardware_-_Design_and_Implementation_Issues/links/02bfe51158e569ccf3000000/Neural-Networks-in-Analog-Hardware-Design-and-Implementation-Issues.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sorin-Draghici-2/public... [5]: and just to reiterate, this is part of my problem with this paper. In places they seem to be making that stronger universal claim, in other places they seem to be making a weaker claim that is constrained by some notion of "in the near term." Since it's hard to say what they're even arguing, it's hard to put much stock in their work to my way of thinking. [6]: OK, to be fair "intractable" can be interpreted as just "really really hard" not necessarily "impossible". But in this context, saying "we've proved that Thing X is really hard" doesn't seem like a very interesting claim, so I interpret the authors' intent as being to say that it's effectively impossible. But I'll allow that I could be misinterpreting their claim.
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        Re: [6] allow me to note that Kleene (1951) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2008/RM704.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memorand... investigates what sorts of things it's possible to encode with wetware, and claims their mathematical equivalent would be huge (if still finite) state machines.