4 ms·

Sure, but what does that have to do with AGI? I don't think anyone is proposing simulating an entire brain (yet, anyway). Like you could have "AGI" if you simp

Sure, but what does that have to do with AGI? I don't think anyone is proposing simulating an entire brain (yet, anyway). Like you could have "AGI" if you simply virtualized the universe. I don't think we're any closer to that than we are to AGI; hell, something that looks like a human mouth output is a lot easier and cheaper to model than virtualize.

ceejayoz 1y ago
Unless you believe humans have something mystical like a soul, our brains are evidence that “general intelligence” is achievable in a relatively small, energy efficient form.
- Mbwagava 1y ago
  Ok, but very few people contest that consciousness is computable. It's basically just Penrose (and other folks without the domain knowledge to engage). This doesn't imply that at any point during all human existence will computing consciousness be economically feasible or worthwhile. Actual AGI presumably implies a not-brain involved. And this isn't even broaching the subject of "superintelligence", which I would describe as "superunbelievable".
  - Eisenstein 1y ago
    Until you can create a definition of consciousness which can be tested externally from the tested object, then the whole subject is moot.
    - Mbwagava 1y ago
      It obviously isn't if people are casually bringing up AGI like it's feasible.
      - Jensson 1y ago
        AGI has nothing to do with consciousness, AGI is just about intelligence. There is no C for "Consciousness" in the acronym.
        Mbwagava 1y ago
        I'm not sure what on earth intelligence means if it doesn't imply consciousness. Why do we not consider a calculator intelligent then?
        ImHereToVote 1y ago
        We can ignore the term intelligence if you like. It has too many anthropic connotations. We can use the term generalized goal to action mapper. Humans are great generalized goal to action mappers. Come up with any goal you want to reach, and some human can but a large dent in the problem. Maybe reach the goal outright. We already have some nifty artificial goal to action mappers. None of them are generalized to a wide category of goals yet. Maybe some goals need consciousness to be reached, but that isn't a given. We don't really know that. We might be left very unsatisfied in the way an artificial goal to action mapper reaches any goal without consciousness. We might even call it cheating.
    - grantcas 1y ago
      [dead]

ceejayoz 1y ago

Unless you believe humans have something mystical like a soul, our brains are evidence that “general intelligence” is achievable in a relatively small, energy efficient form.

Mbwagava 1y ago
Ok, but very few people contest that consciousness is computable. It's basically just Penrose (and other folks without the domain knowledge to engage). This doesn't imply that at any point during all human existence will computing consciousness be economically feasible or worthwhile. Actual AGI presumably implies a not-brain involved. And this isn't even broaching the subject of "superintelligence", which I would describe as "superunbelievable".
- Eisenstein 1y ago
  Until you can create a definition of consciousness which can be tested externally from the tested object, then the whole subject is moot.
  - Mbwagava 1y ago
    It obviously isn't if people are casually bringing up AGI like it's feasible.
    - Jensson 1y ago
      AGI has nothing to do with consciousness, AGI is just about intelligence. There is no C for "Consciousness" in the acronym.
      - Mbwagava 1y ago
        I'm not sure what on earth intelligence means if it doesn't imply consciousness. Why do we not consider a calculator intelligent then?
        ImHereToVote 1y ago
        We can ignore the term intelligence if you like. It has too many anthropic connotations. We can use the term generalized goal to action mapper. Humans are great generalized goal to action mappers. Come up with any goal you want to reach, and some human can but a large dent in the problem. Maybe reach the goal outright. We already have some nifty artificial goal to action mappers. None of them are generalized to a wide category of goals yet. Maybe some goals need consciousness to be reached, but that isn't a given. We don't really know that. We might be left very unsatisfied in the way an artificial goal to action mapper reaches any goal without consciousness. We might even call it cheating.
  - grantcas 1y ago
    [dead]