4 ms·

Thanks for the reply. When I think about understanding, in principle I require consistency not completeness. In fact, understandability is predicated on consis

Thanks for the reply. When I think about understanding, in principle I require consistency not completeness. In fact, understandability is predicated on consistency in my view. If I liken the quest for AGI to the quest for human flight, wherein we learned that the shape of the wing provides nearly effortless lift, while wing flapping only provides a small portion of the lift for comparatively massive energy input, then I suspect we are only doing the AGI equivalent of wing flapping at this point.

neom 2y ago
the human mind itself isn't fully consistent...or at least, consistency isn't necessarily how we operate internally (lots of contradictions, ambiguities, simultaneous beliefs that don't neatly align). Yet we still manage to "understand" things deeply. Complete logical consistency isn't strictly required for understanding in a practical, real world sense. We are totally "flapping" right now with AI, brute forcing algebraic intelligence and missing that elegant "geometric" insight. My point is simply that our brains already have that built in "wing shape" neurologically, we just haven't mapped it out or leveraged it fully yet. The real leap isn't discovering a new wing design, it's understanding we already have one, we just have to leverage it. :) :)
- d4rkn0d3z 2y ago
  Now I think you come to thw crux of it.