3 ms·

I believe airplanes were made before the first good simulations of bird flight.

by drdeca 2y ago

almostgotcaught 2y ago
yes and they only flew ~100 feet https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/1903-wright-flyer/nasm_A19610048000 https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/1903-wright-fl...
- drdeca 2y ago
  The first aircraft? Ok. And how far did aircraft get before we were able to make functioning wings that work by flapping in the way of birds? (Actually, have we even done the latter? I imagine we have, but I’m not sure.)
  - almostgotcaught 2y ago
    i don't understand your fixation on a direct analogy between flight and birds. modern aircraft are absolutely simulated to astronomical levels of detail and the compute associated with such simulation is commensurately astronomical - such simulations are exactly what so-called "supercomputers" at national labs do.
    - drdeca 2y ago
      Because full brain simulation would be achieving intelligence in the same way brains achieve it? Are you saying that simulating a brain is analogous to simulating an airplane? A simulated airplane doesn’t actually fly. A simulated brain actually thinks (for at least some senses of “think”.. some might argue that it wouldn’t have internal experience no matter the accuracy of simulation. I don’t think that’s true, but even if it is, it would still “think” in the relevant sense of its external behavior.).
      - almostgotcaught 2y ago
        > Are you saying that simulating a brain is analogous to simulating an airplane? Am I taking crazy pills? You brought up airplanes as an apt comparison and I said well airplanes are in fact simulated. But now airplanes aren't analogous? Do you like have a single material fact regarding brains and/or AI to substantiate your arguments or is it all only conjecture and metaphor?
        drdeca 2y ago
        I brought up making airplanes, not simulating airplanes. You brought up simulating airplanes. The point I am interested in making is primarily based on metaphor/precedent. Seems like a good basis for estimating how hard a task that hasn’t been done before is. For a variety of things that various animals do, it is easier for us to make a machine that accomplishes the same kind of thing in a substantially different way than it is for us to make a machine that accomplishes the task in the same way. Why would this pattern not hold for intelligence as well?

I believe airplanes were made before the first good simulations of bird flight.

by drdeca 2y ago

I believe airplanes were made before the first good simulations of bird flight.

yes and they only flew ~100 feet https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/1903-wright-flyer/nasm_A19610048000 https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/1903-wright-fl...

drdeca 2y ago
The first aircraft? Ok. And how far did aircraft get before we were able to make functioning wings that work by flapping in the way of birds? (Actually, have we even done the latter? I imagine we have, but I’m not sure.)
- almostgotcaught 2y ago
  i don't understand your fixation on a direct analogy between flight and birds. modern aircraft are absolutely simulated to astronomical levels of detail and the compute associated with such simulation is commensurately astronomical - such simulations are exactly what so-called "supercomputers" at national labs do.
  - drdeca 2y ago
    Because full brain simulation would be achieving intelligence in the same way brains achieve it? Are you saying that simulating a brain is analogous to simulating an airplane? A simulated airplane doesn’t actually fly. A simulated brain actually thinks (for at least some senses of “think”.. some might argue that it wouldn’t have internal experience no matter the accuracy of simulation. I don’t think that’s true, but even if it is, it would still “think” in the relevant sense of its external behavior.).
    - almostgotcaught 2y ago
      > Are you saying that simulating a brain is analogous to simulating an airplane? Am I taking crazy pills? You brought up airplanes as an apt comparison and I said well airplanes are in fact simulated. But now airplanes aren't analogous? Do you like have a single material fact regarding brains and/or AI to substantiate your arguments or is it all only conjecture and metaphor?
      - drdeca 2y ago
        I brought up making airplanes, not simulating airplanes. You brought up simulating airplanes. The point I am interested in making is primarily based on metaphor/precedent. Seems like a good basis for estimating how hard a task that hasn’t been done before is. For a variety of things that various animals do, it is easier for us to make a machine that accomplishes the same kind of thing in a substantially different way than it is for us to make a machine that accomplishes the task in the same way. Why would this pattern not hold for intelligence as well?