4 ms·
I think most AI research up to this day is a dead end. Assuming that intelligence is a problem solvable by computers implies that intelligence is a computable f
by trane_project 2y ago
I think most AI research up to this day is a dead end. Assuming that intelligence is a problem solvable by computers implies that intelligence is a computable function. Nobody up to this day has been able to give a formal mathematical definition of intelligence, let alone a proof that it can be reduced to a computable function.
So why assume that computer science is the key to solving a problem that cannot even be defined in terms of math? We had formal definitions of computers decades before they became a reality, but somehow cannot make progress in formally defining intelligence.
I do think artificial intelligence can be achieved by making artificial intelligence a multidiscipline endeavor with biological engineering at its core, not computer science. See the work of Michael Levin to see real intelligence in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed3ioGO7g10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed3ioGO7g10
- leesec 2y agoMarcus Hutter did
- Xunjin 2y agoCould you point out where we could find the related info?
- trane_project 2y agoThanks for pointing me out to this. This is a proposed definition of intelligence. Is it the same as the real thing, though? Even assuming that it was: > Like Solomonoff induction, AIXI is incomputable. That would mean that computers can, at best, produce an approximation. We know the real thing exists in nature though, so why not take advantage of those competencies?
- lanza 2y ago> Nobody up to this day has been able to give a formal mathematical definition of intelligence, let alone a proof that it can be reduced to a computable function. We can't prove the correctness of the plurality of physics. Should we call that a dead end too?
- Davidbrcz 2y agoThis is actually a philosophical question ! If you believe in functionalism (~mental states are identified by what they do rather than by what they are made of), then current AI is not a dead end. We wouldn't need to define intelligence, just make it big and efficient enough to replicate what's currently existing would be intelligence by that definition.
- trane_project 2y agoMy point is that if you use biological cells to drive the system, which already exhibit intelligent behaviors, you don't have to worry about any of these questions. The basic unit you are using is already intelligent, so it's a given that the full system will be intelligent. And not an approximation but the real thing.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- red75prime 2y agoHumanities? Have you chosen humanities as electives?
- hanniabu 2y agoCurrent AI should be referred to as collective intelligence since it needs to be trained and only knows what's been written