5 ms·
How is your brain doing it then?
by Tuna-Fish 1y ago
How is your brain doing it then?
- stogot 1y agoDoing artificial?
- Tuna-Fish 1y agoThe brain still exists in the same universe running on the same mathematical laws. The A adds no constraints that can make anything impossible. There is nothing that the brain is doing that we cannot also replicate, we just cannot get to the same scale yet.
- stogot 1y agoScale has nothing to do with it. We cannot replicate it, nor do we fully understand it. This is a fact, agreed upon by neurologists, physicist, and philosophers.
- automatic6131 1y agoI could believe we're not generally intelligent.
- baq 1y agoIt follows that it doesn’t. In practical terms, the result doesn’t matter. The race to approximate the human thought process and call it AGI (which is what matters economically) is on. If you can approximate it meaningfully faster that the real brain works in meatspace, you are winning. What it will mean for humanity or civilization is an open question.
- hahn-kev 1y agoI don't think it even needs to be faster, if you can make an artificial brain that's useful even if it's 100x slower, you can always run stuff in parallel.
- trhway 1y agoIt is already faster because you don't need to wait 12 years of K-12 and 4 years of college before it can produce meaningful answers.
- delusional 1y ago> you can always run stuff in parallel. Even that isn't needed. A "general intelligence" separable from ethics and rights is valuable in itself. It's valuable to subjugate, as long as the subjugated object is producing more than they are consuming.
- Veen 1y agoThat's one possible inference. However, it would also be consistent to claim that there is a fundamentally uncomputable and impossible-to-artificially-replicate "mechanism" underlying human intelligence.
- baq 1y agoMy inner philosopher agrees. My inner engineer doesn’t care; a good enough approximation will suffice.
- mindcrime 1y agoThe race to approximate the human thought process and call it AGI (which is what matters economically) is on Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but I'd argue that there's no particular reason to say that AGI involves "approximating the human thought process". That is, what matters is the result, not the process. IF one can find another way to "get there" in a completely different manner than the human mind, then great. That said, obviously there is some appeal to the "mimic human thought" approach since human thought is currently an existence proof that the kind of intelligence we are talking about is possible at all and mimicking that does seem like an obvious path to try.
- DragonStrength 1y agoThe "A" stands for "Artificial" in contrast to what our brains do.
- aetherson 1y agoIf you want to argue for a fundamentally non-material mind (ie, that human cognition happens in a physically impossible, spiritual plane), then cool. Though you might want to give some consideration to how much it seems like physical processes on the brain can demonstrably affect cognition. If you aren't arguing for a non-materialist position, then the distinction between "artificial" and human intelligence isn't meaningful. A powerful enough computer could simulate the material processes in your brain. If as the OP claims it is mathematically impossible for a computer to generate intelligence, no matter how powerful that computer, then it is impossible for your brain to do so (via material processes).
- DragonStrength 1y agoThere's no reason to assume our current pursuit is not a dead end for any number of reasons we do not yet understand. There is a lot of faith we are capturing the same thing based on perceptions, which have a lot to do with the individual observer. It seems very important to some folks that our natural process is a mirror of what our technology does. The same result does not mean it is the same process or anything other than a mirage -- though one that may trick a lot of us. Every generation tries to map its most complex technology onto its understanding of nature. "AGI" has a specific meaning today, but if you want it to mean atheism versus theism or whatever materialist argument, you're far outside of science and technology. Like our fathers of the Enlightenment with their watchmaker god. The idea there is some way for humans to break free of nature seems like a religious belief to me, but whether you agree or not, certainly there is room for doubting that faith, since we're outside the realm of what science can explore.
- aetherson 1y ago"Current LLMs are not going to get to AGI" is a different and much weaker claim than "AGI is mathematically impossible."
- 00deadbeef 1y agoMy brain isn’t artificial. I hope.
- Aardwolf 1y agoArtificial is the distinction between biologically made or made by humans, does that mathematically matter?
- bsindicatr 1y ago> How is your brain doing it then? Quantum entanglement?: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a65368553/quantum-entanglement-in-brain-consciousness/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a65368553/quantum-e... And we’re not mathematically impossible, unless that’s some new philosophical theory: “If human intelligence is mathematically impossible, and yet it exists, then mathematics is fallible, and by inductive reasoning logic is fallible, and I can prove things with inductive reasoning, because piss off.”
- Tuna-Fish 1y agoQuantum entanglement is not magic that lets you bypass mathematics. Anything that's true with it is also true without it.
- delusional 1y ago> then mathematics is fallible Wasn't this essentially the conclusion of Gödel. Math, based on a set of axioms, will either have to accept that there are things that are true but can't be proven, or that there are proofs that aren't true.
- quotemstr 1y agoEven if the brain were using quantum voodoo (and it's not: it's too messy and too hot), a machine could use the same techniques to implement AGI.
- he0001 1y agoWouldn’t it be possible that not all brains can do it all, but some can specialize in certain problems. But when combined with everyone else’s we can approach general intelligence?