3 ms·

In theory a computer should be able to model any physical process so I do agree it's only a matter of time. That said I don't think I will be alive to see it ho

by pier25 7mo ago

In theory a computer should be able to model any physical process so I do agree it's only a matter of time. That said I don't think I will be alive to see it honestly. The current tech won't get us there just like the steam engine or the internal combustion engine didn't get us to the Moon. And getting to AGI is probably more like getting to Mars.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
I personally think we have some tremendous energy problems (and the negative externalities derived from “solutions”) to contend with before we even sniff AGI.
- pier25 7mo ago
  Definitely. Comercial fusion is still decades away. Solar and lithium batteries are getting cheaper every year but unfortunately still lots of political issues in many countries.
davemp 7mo ago
Considering we can only approximate irrational numbers, I’m not sure that’s a given. Maybe we’ll have a breakthrough with some type of analog computing, but we could also just hit physical limits on energy or precision.
- Verdex 7mo ago
  Yeah, church turing suggests that a computer can compute any computable function. Or the universality of computable substrate. Maybe there's a confusion that computation universality implies everything universality?
Verdex 7mo ago
> In theory a computer should be able to model any physical process Wait, which theory is that? In church turing theory the computer can compute any computable function. Why do we think that the computer can model any physical process? Or are we suggesting that you can build a computer out of whatever physical process you want to model?
- dragonwriter 7mo ago
  > > In theory a computer should be able to model any physical process > Wait, which theory is that? The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle. (Which isn’t a theory in the empirical sense, but somewhat more speculative.) > Or are we suggesting that you can build a computer out of whatever physical process you want to model? Well, you obviously can do that. Whether that computer is Turing equivalent, more limited, or potentially a hypercomputer is...well, Church-Turing-Deutsch says the last is always false, but good luck proving it.

by pier25 7mo ago

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

datsci_est_2015 7mo ago

I personally think we have some tremendous energy problems (and the negative externalities derived from “solutions”) to contend with before we even sniff AGI.

pier25 7mo ago
Definitely. Comercial fusion is still decades away. Solar and lithium batteries are getting cheaper every year but unfortunately still lots of political issues in many countries.

davemp 7mo ago

Considering we can only approximate irrational numbers, I’m not sure that’s a given. Maybe we’ll have a breakthrough with some type of analog computing, but we could also just hit physical limits on energy or precision.

Verdex 7mo ago
Yeah, church turing suggests that a computer can compute any computable function. Or the universality of computable substrate. Maybe there's a confusion that computation universality implies everything universality?

Verdex 7mo ago

> In theory a computer should be able to model any physical process Wait, which theory is that? In church turing theory the computer can compute any computable function. Why do we think that the computer can model any physical process? Or are we suggesting that you can build a computer out of whatever physical process you want to model?

dragonwriter 7mo ago
> > In theory a computer should be able to model any physical process > Wait, which theory is that? The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle. (Which isn’t a theory in the empirical sense, but somewhat more speculative.) > Or are we suggesting that you can build a computer out of whatever physical process you want to model? Well, you obviously can do that. Whether that computer is Turing equivalent, more limited, or potentially a hypercomputer is...well, Church-Turing-Deutsch says the last is always false, but good luck proving it.