3 ms·

It’s fine to think that—many clearly do. But it would be more honest and productive imo if people would just say outright when they don’t think AGI is possible

It’s fine to think that—many clearly do. But it would be more honest and productive imo if people would just say outright when they don’t think AGI is possible (or that AI can never be “real intelligence”) for religious reasons, rather than pretending there’s a rational basis.

gls2ro 1y ago
AGI is not possible because we dont yet have a clear and commonly agreed definition of intelligence and more importantly we dont have a definition for consciousness nor we can define clearly (if there is) the link between those two. until we got that AGI is just a magic word. When we will have those two clear definitions that means we understood them and then we can work toward AGI.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Mikhail_Edoshin 1y ago
When you try to solve a problem the goal or the reason to reject the current solution are often vague and hard to put in words. Irrational. For example, for many years the fifth postulate of Euclid was a source of mathematical discontent because of a vague feeling that it was way too complex compared to the other four. Such irrationality is a necessary step in human thought.
- danenania 1y ago
  Yes, that’s fair. I’m not saying there’s no value to irrational hunches (or emotions, or spirituality). Just that you should be transparent when that’s the basis for your beliefs.
hitarpetar 1y ago
rationalism has become the new religion. Roko's basilisk is a ghost story and the quest for AGI is today's quest for the philosopher's stone. and people believe this shit because they can articulate a "rational basis"
habinero 1y ago
That's not a good way to think about it. Plenty of things could theoretically exist that aren't possible and likely will never be possible. Like, sure, a Dyson sphere would solve our energy needs. We can't build one now and we almost certainly never will lol "AGI" is theoretically feasible, sure. Our brains are just matter. But they're also an insanely complex and complicated system that came out of a billion years of evolution. A little rinky dink statistical model doesn't even scratch the surface of it, and I don't understand why people think it does.
- danenania 1y ago
  > But they're also an insanely complex and complicated system that came out of a billion years of evolution. As are birds, yet we can still build airplanes.
  - player1234 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - danenania 1y ago
      Sorry you got triggered. I know it can be an emotional topic for some people. I'll try to explain in a simple way. We clearly are replicating at least some significant aspects of human intelligence via LLMs, despite biological complexity. So we obviously don't need a 100% complete understanding of the corresponding biology to build things which achieve similar goals. In other words, we can (conceivably) figure out how intelligence works and how to produce it independently of figuring out exactly how the human brain produces intelligence, just like we learned the laws of aerodynamics well enough to build airplanes independently of understanding everything about the biology of birds. Whether we will achieve this or not to the point of AGI is a separate engineering question. I'm only pointing out how flawed these lines of argument are.
      - habinero 1y ago
        > We clearly are replicating at least some significant aspects of human intelligence via LLMs That's a very load-bearing "clearly". I don't think it's clear at all lol. Again, you are vastly underestimating the scale here. Heavier-than-air flight is (relatively) straightforward and it's easy for humans to build models. Also, you know when you're flying. Building a star is theoretically also relatively straightforward -- just collect a lot of gas and dust in one area and wait for gravity to do its thing. Actually doing that is left as an exercise to the reader.

gls2ro 1y ago

AGI is not possible because we dont yet have a clear and commonly agreed definition of intelligence and more importantly we dont have a definition for consciousness nor we can define clearly (if there is) the link between those two. until we got that AGI is just a magic word. When we will have those two clear definitions that means we understood them and then we can work toward AGI.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

Mikhail_Edoshin 1y ago

When you try to solve a problem the goal or the reason to reject the current solution are often vague and hard to put in words. Irrational. For example, for many years the fifth postulate of Euclid was a source of mathematical discontent because of a vague feeling that it was way too complex compared to the other four. Such irrationality is a necessary step in human thought.

danenania 1y ago
Yes, that’s fair. I’m not saying there’s no value to irrational hunches (or emotions, or spirituality). Just that you should be transparent when that’s the basis for your beliefs.

hitarpetar 1y ago

rationalism has become the new religion. Roko's basilisk is a ghost story and the quest for AGI is today's quest for the philosopher's stone. and people believe this shit because they can articulate a "rational basis"

habinero 1y ago

That's not a good way to think about it. Plenty of things could theoretically exist that aren't possible and likely will never be possible. Like, sure, a Dyson sphere would solve our energy needs. We can't build one now and we almost certainly never will lol "AGI" is theoretically feasible, sure. Our brains are just matter. But they're also an insanely complex and complicated system that came out of a billion years of evolution. A little rinky dink statistical model doesn't even scratch the surface of it, and I don't understand why people think it does.

danenania 1y ago
> But they're also an insanely complex and complicated system that came out of a billion years of evolution. As are birds, yet we can still build airplanes.
- player1234 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - danenania 1y ago
    Sorry you got triggered. I know it can be an emotional topic for some people. I'll try to explain in a simple way. We clearly are replicating at least some significant aspects of human intelligence via LLMs, despite biological complexity. So we obviously don't need a 100% complete understanding of the corresponding biology to build things which achieve similar goals. In other words, we can (conceivably) figure out how intelligence works and how to produce it independently of figuring out exactly how the human brain produces intelligence, just like we learned the laws of aerodynamics well enough to build airplanes independently of understanding everything about the biology of birds. Whether we will achieve this or not to the point of AGI is a separate engineering question. I'm only pointing out how flawed these lines of argument are.
    - habinero 1y ago
      > We clearly are replicating at least some significant aspects of human intelligence via LLMs That's a very load-bearing "clearly". I don't think it's clear at all lol. Again, you are vastly underestimating the scale here. Heavier-than-air flight is (relatively) straightforward and it's easy for humans to build models. Also, you know when you're flying. Building a star is theoretically also relatively straightforward -- just collect a lot of gas and dust in one area and wait for gravity to do its thing. Actually doing that is left as an exercise to the reader.