5 ms·

>Human-level AI is possible. Well we exist, so we know human-level intelligence can be implemented in physics. So we certainly know AI is possible.

malka 12y ago
Playing a little bit devil advocate here ;) We have no mean to know. Maybe the subjective experience is an inherent part of our intelligence, and not just a side effect. And I do not see any way of applying the scientific method to the subjective experience. Nethertheless, I really hope that the future will prove me wrong.
- sampo 12y ago
  Please correct if I'm wrong, but sounds like you think human intelligence requires something outside of known physics, something "magical", to work?
  - malka 12y ago
    I'm agnostic about this question. We do not have the necessarry tools to answer right now. One possible way I can see to do that would be to map a human brain neuron by neuron and simulate it. We are not here yet.
sampo 12y ago
I agree to that. But the question of whether human-level I is capable of designing human-level AI remains open still.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I agree to that. But the question of whether human-level I is capable of designing human-level AI remains open still. "Designing" isn't necessary for creating (OTOH, whether we can artificial select for it and avoid selecting for dead ends may be an issue.)
  - sampo 12y ago
    You are correct. But it's not 100% certain whether we would be capable of setting up a world simulation that would create intelligent agents of the human level. And much less certain, (1) are we able to set up such simulation in the next couple of centuries, and (2) will the simulation produce these intelligent agents after having been running for only a couple of centuries (wall clock time). Btw, Crystal Nights by Greg Egan is a fascinating short story: http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/ http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/
- baddox 12y ago
  Even if we never figure out a formal computational design for human-level AI, I find it hard to believe that we wouldn't be able to achieve the same ends with genetic engineering and computer interfaces to biological computers (i.e. brains).
- e12e 12y ago
  Well, design is a slippery word. We are capable of producing children that grow up to be intelligent. In fact, I think it is quite clear that we are capable of designing systems that are more intelligent than an unaided human (or even group of humans). One of the first such systems were writing. I also tentatively claim that new means of recording and arranging knowledge (which we do today by means of computers) is another step towards superhuman intellect in the strictest sense of "more than mere human". I think it is an open question what will come out of our playing with genes directly. I certainly expect we'll able to produce some change in the human condition, I hope some of that change will be for the "objectively" better. I have no idea if it will directly impact our intelligence.

malka 12y ago

Playing a little bit devil advocate here ;) We have no mean to know. Maybe the subjective experience is an inherent part of our intelligence, and not just a side effect. And I do not see any way of applying the scientific method to the subjective experience. Nethertheless, I really hope that the future will prove me wrong.

sampo 12y ago
Please correct if I'm wrong, but sounds like you think human intelligence requires something outside of known physics, something "magical", to work?
- malka 12y ago
  I'm agnostic about this question. We do not have the necessarry tools to answer right now. One possible way I can see to do that would be to map a human brain neuron by neuron and simulate it. We are not here yet.

sampo 12y ago

I agree to that. But the question of whether human-level I is capable of designing human-level AI remains open still.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I agree to that. But the question of whether human-level I is capable of designing human-level AI remains open still. "Designing" isn't necessary for creating (OTOH, whether we can artificial select for it and avoid selecting for dead ends may be an issue.)
- sampo 12y ago
  You are correct. But it's not 100% certain whether we would be capable of setting up a world simulation that would create intelligent agents of the human level. And much less certain, (1) are we able to set up such simulation in the next couple of centuries, and (2) will the simulation produce these intelligent agents after having been running for only a couple of centuries (wall clock time). Btw, Crystal Nights by Greg Egan is a fascinating short story: http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/ http://ttapress.com/553/crystal-nights-by-greg-egan/
baddox 12y ago
Even if we never figure out a formal computational design for human-level AI, I find it hard to believe that we wouldn't be able to achieve the same ends with genetic engineering and computer interfaces to biological computers (i.e. brains).
e12e 12y ago
Well, design is a slippery word. We are capable of producing children that grow up to be intelligent. In fact, I think it is quite clear that we are capable of designing systems that are more intelligent than an unaided human (or even group of humans). One of the first such systems were writing. I also tentatively claim that new means of recording and arranging knowledge (which we do today by means of computers) is another step towards superhuman intellect in the strictest sense of "more than mere human". I think it is an open question what will come out of our playing with genes directly. I certainly expect we'll able to produce some change in the human condition, I hope some of that change will be for the "objectively" better. I have no idea if it will directly impact our intelligence.