5 ms·

tl;dr Human intelligence is special. Computer accomplishments like being good at chess is not real intelligence. In fact anything computers ever do is not real

by soup10 12y ago

tl;dr Human intelligence is special. Computer accomplishments like being good at chess is not real intelligence. In fact anything computers ever do is not real intelligence, because they aren't like us and possibly never will be because there is some divine truth and wisdom that only humans posses. How many times do we have to hear these arguments to realize they are just hot air? Either computers are capable of intelligence, or they are not. The answer to that question depends entirely on how you define intelligence. If you define it as the set of things humans are capable of and computers are not, then the answer will always be no. But just like humans, computers learn and are taught new things every day, and as time goes on the set of things human's are uniquely capable of grows smaller and smaller.

oppositereally 12y ago
I think that misunderstands the article (a forgivable offense: it is very long). tl;dr: AGI is possible, but we're going about it all wrong and won't create it until we philosophically understand it.
- IvyMike 12y ago
  Deutsch discounts the possibility that we create AGI the same way the universe did: as a sum of emergent behaviors honed by an evolutionary process. Nobody developing an AGI is going to code every behavior, line by line. They're going to code an infrastructure within which an AGI could work.
  - thom 12y ago
    The interesting thing about this is that the AGI will probably have about as good an idea of how its brain works as we do. While I agree this is likely to be the way AGI comes about, I suspect it will impact its ability to improve itself. What are the ramifications of (let's say) human-level intelligence running on different hardware?
    - breuleux 12y ago
      Well, if AGI evolves from infrastructure that naturally fosters intelligence, then it is probable that most intelligence gains are actually a function of better infrastructure. This suggests that individual intelligences are actually dead ends: if a new, better infrastructure comes up, you can't just port an existing AGI to it because the whole of it is organized suboptimally: training a new AGI from scratch will always be faster than to try to improve the old one. It's similar to how new software projects can innovate more easily than existing ones because they don't have legacy burdens.
java-man 12y ago
Jeff Hawkins defines intelligence as the ability to predict. I think it's a good definition: it allows us to measure intelligence.
- biomimic 12y ago
  I think Steven Pinker had good takes on mimicking human cognition in his book, How the Mind Works along with describing Computational Theory of the Mind (CTM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
- thom 12y ago
  I've not read much about this definition, but it seems that a problem with focusing on the ability to predict is that to get useful work done, you have to reduce everything to a decision problem. You have an ideal fitness function, but how are you generating ideas, plans or theories to evaluate? I personally prefer (although it's certainly less measurable) Ben Goertzel's definition - the ability to achieve complex goals in complex environments. It's still wishy-washy enough for people to write off any given achievement of AI though, I guess.
- chriskanan 12y ago
  The brain as a prediction and inference engine (the Bayesian brain) has been accepted by many in neuroscience. I think this article is novel because he rebels against this idea. I do think that many of the things that we consider intelligence are prediction, image recognition, speech comprehension, understanding other's theory of mind, and many games (e.g., chess). I think Deutsch's argument is that there is also creativity (and creative reasoning) that is omitted from today's approaches to AI.
pesenti 12y ago
Every time an AI system beats a human at a task that was previously thought hard (chess, jeopardy, face recognition, etc) many people immediately dismiss it as not reflecting real intelligence any longer.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  When that process is complete, and every tasks has been eliminated from those reflecting "real intelligence", we will be certain that we have created artificial intelligence by any measure that matters.
21echoes 12y ago
The article stands in direct contradiction to your supposed summary of it. To wit: > Despite this long record of failure, AGI must be possible. And that is because of a deep property of the laws of physics, namely the universality of computation. > [Turing] concluded that a computer program whose repertoire included all the distinctive attributes of the human brain — feelings, free will, consciousness and all — could be written. This astounding claim split the intellectual world into two camps, one insisting that AGI was none the less impossible, and the other that it was imminent. Both were mistaken. etc etc etc. He literally spends more than 60% of the (very long) essay arguing against your "summary". Anyway, a real tl;dr is right at the top of the page: "Expecting to create an AGI without first understanding in detail how it works is like expecting skyscrapers to learn to fly if we build them tall enough." and then the last sentence: "it is plausible that just a single idea stands between us and the breakthrough. But it will have to be one of the best ideas ever." In other words, AGI is provably possible, but the author believes that we're going about it all wrong (behaviorist-inspired neural nets running on training sets, etc.) and need a philosophical (specifically: epistemological) breakthrough to move forward.
- deeviant 12y ago
  The last thing that AGI needs is more philosophical thinking. Philosophy and the Turing Test have done enough damage to the field. Philosophers can not seem to comprehend how a mass of meat can create consciousness and take leaps to try to rule out the mass of meat, regardless of the fact that they all know that when bad things happen to said mass of meat bad things also happen to said consciousness. The Turing Test could not have been a more wrong direction to define AGI. Looking like something does not make you that thing, and it did not at all address capability, just the appearance of capability. Insight into intelligence will come slowly, and it will come from examining, categorizing, and eventually understanding the internal workings of the human brain.
  - pron 12y ago
    > Philosophers can not seem to comprehend how a mass of meat can create consciousness and take leaps to try to rule out the mass of meat, regardless of the fact that they all know that when bad things happen to said mass of meat bad things also happen to said consciousness. Neither can anyone else, so far. > Insight into intelligence will come slowly, and it will come from examining, categorizing, and eventually understanding the internal workings of the human brain. Insight -- yes. AI -- not so certain. Here's why: it's plausible that intelligence in the human mind emerges as a consequence of an intractable process. We might not be able to understand that intractable process. But suppose that instead of understanding it, we mimic it: we build a replica of the human brain, and it works! But this is not quite artificial intelligence but a replica of natural intelligence. This is not just a semantic difference: even if this mimicry works we may not be able to direct it in any way. For example, we won't necessarily be able to give this brain replica super-human intelligence, without, say, giving it a mental illness at the same time.
ytturbed 12y ago
>In fact anything computers ever do is not real intelligence No, he doesn't say that. On the contrary he names the principle ('Universality of Computation'; see paragraph 4) which guarantees that computers are capable of true intelligence, since, if programmed correctly, they can simulate the behaviour of any physical object, including human brains. >there is some divine truth and wisdom that only humans possess. He also explicitly repudiates supernatural explanations (see para immediately before the one mentioning John Searle).
noiv 12y ago
> is not real intelligence Why is it so hard to remove our self from that equation? Why should intelligence be a skill only humans acquire? It is not only about machines: There is a constant stream of papers revealing animals are not that dumb as thought either. We survived recognizing we are not the center of the universe, may be we are also not alone on the top of the intelligence pyramid. Latest edge question "What do you think about machines that think?" provides a good and very broad overview of many aspects. I go with George Church: "What do you care what other machines think?" http://edge.org/responses/what-do-you-think-about-machines-that-think http://edge.org/responses/what-do-you-think-about-machines-t...
ForHackernews 12y ago
Do you believe in consciousness? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

by soup10 12y ago

oppositereally 12y ago

I think that misunderstands the article (a forgivable offense: it is very long). tl;dr: AGI is possible, but we're going about it all wrong and won't create it until we philosophically understand it.

IvyMike 12y ago
Deutsch discounts the possibility that we create AGI the same way the universe did: as a sum of emergent behaviors honed by an evolutionary process. Nobody developing an AGI is going to code every behavior, line by line. They're going to code an infrastructure within which an AGI could work.
- thom 12y ago
  The interesting thing about this is that the AGI will probably have about as good an idea of how its brain works as we do. While I agree this is likely to be the way AGI comes about, I suspect it will impact its ability to improve itself. What are the ramifications of (let's say) human-level intelligence running on different hardware?
  - breuleux 12y ago
    Well, if AGI evolves from infrastructure that naturally fosters intelligence, then it is probable that most intelligence gains are actually a function of better infrastructure. This suggests that individual intelligences are actually dead ends: if a new, better infrastructure comes up, you can't just port an existing AGI to it because the whole of it is organized suboptimally: training a new AGI from scratch will always be faster than to try to improve the old one. It's similar to how new software projects can innovate more easily than existing ones because they don't have legacy burdens.

java-man 12y ago

Jeff Hawkins defines intelligence as the ability to predict. I think it's a good definition: it allows us to measure intelligence.

biomimic 12y ago
I think Steven Pinker had good takes on mimicking human cognition in his book, How the Mind Works along with describing Computational Theory of the Mind (CTM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
thom 12y ago
I've not read much about this definition, but it seems that a problem with focusing on the ability to predict is that to get useful work done, you have to reduce everything to a decision problem. You have an ideal fitness function, but how are you generating ideas, plans or theories to evaluate? I personally prefer (although it's certainly less measurable) Ben Goertzel's definition - the ability to achieve complex goals in complex environments. It's still wishy-washy enough for people to write off any given achievement of AI though, I guess.
chriskanan 12y ago
The brain as a prediction and inference engine (the Bayesian brain) has been accepted by many in neuroscience. I think this article is novel because he rebels against this idea. I do think that many of the things that we consider intelligence are prediction, image recognition, speech comprehension, understanding other's theory of mind, and many games (e.g., chess). I think Deutsch's argument is that there is also creativity (and creative reasoning) that is omitted from today's approaches to AI.

pesenti 12y ago

Every time an AI system beats a human at a task that was previously thought hard (chess, jeopardy, face recognition, etc) many people immediately dismiss it as not reflecting real intelligence any longer.

dragonwriter 12y ago
When that process is complete, and every tasks has been eliminated from those reflecting "real intelligence", we will be certain that we have created artificial intelligence by any measure that matters.

21echoes 12y ago

The article stands in direct contradiction to your supposed summary of it. To wit: > Despite this long record of failure, AGI must be possible. And that is because of a deep property of the laws of physics, namely the universality of computation. > [Turing] concluded that a computer program whose repertoire included all the distinctive attributes of the human brain — feelings, free will, consciousness and all — could be written. This astounding claim split the intellectual world into two camps, one insisting that AGI was none the less impossible, and the other that it was imminent. Both were mistaken. etc etc etc. He literally spends more than 60% of the (very long) essay arguing against your "summary". Anyway, a real tl;dr is right at the top of the page: "Expecting to create an AGI without first understanding in detail how it works is like expecting skyscrapers to learn to fly if we build them tall enough." and then the last sentence: "it is plausible that just a single idea stands between us and the breakthrough. But it will have to be one of the best ideas ever." In other words, AGI is provably possible, but the author believes that we're going about it all wrong (behaviorist-inspired neural nets running on training sets, etc.) and need a philosophical (specifically: epistemological) breakthrough to move forward.

deeviant 12y ago
The last thing that AGI needs is more philosophical thinking. Philosophy and the Turing Test have done enough damage to the field. Philosophers can not seem to comprehend how a mass of meat can create consciousness and take leaps to try to rule out the mass of meat, regardless of the fact that they all know that when bad things happen to said mass of meat bad things also happen to said consciousness. The Turing Test could not have been a more wrong direction to define AGI. Looking like something does not make you that thing, and it did not at all address capability, just the appearance of capability. Insight into intelligence will come slowly, and it will come from examining, categorizing, and eventually understanding the internal workings of the human brain.
- pron 12y ago
  > Philosophers can not seem to comprehend how a mass of meat can create consciousness and take leaps to try to rule out the mass of meat, regardless of the fact that they all know that when bad things happen to said mass of meat bad things also happen to said consciousness. Neither can anyone else, so far. > Insight into intelligence will come slowly, and it will come from examining, categorizing, and eventually understanding the internal workings of the human brain. Insight -- yes. AI -- not so certain. Here's why: it's plausible that intelligence in the human mind emerges as a consequence of an intractable process. We might not be able to understand that intractable process. But suppose that instead of understanding it, we mimic it: we build a replica of the human brain, and it works! But this is not quite artificial intelligence but a replica of natural intelligence. This is not just a semantic difference: even if this mimicry works we may not be able to direct it in any way. For example, we won't necessarily be able to give this brain replica super-human intelligence, without, say, giving it a mental illness at the same time.

ytturbed 12y ago

>In fact anything computers ever do is not real intelligence No, he doesn't say that. On the contrary he names the principle ('Universality of Computation'; see paragraph 4) which guarantees that computers are capable of true intelligence, since, if programmed correctly, they can simulate the behaviour of any physical object, including human brains. >there is some divine truth and wisdom that only humans possess. He also explicitly repudiates supernatural explanations (see para immediately before the one mentioning John Searle).

noiv 12y ago

> is not real intelligence Why is it so hard to remove our self from that equation? Why should intelligence be a skill only humans acquire? It is not only about machines: There is a constant stream of papers revealing animals are not that dumb as thought either. We survived recognizing we are not the center of the universe, may be we are also not alone on the top of the intelligence pyramid. Latest edge question "What do you think about machines that think?" provides a good and very broad overview of many aspects. I go with George Church: "What do you care what other machines think?" http://edge.org/responses/what-do-you-think-about-machines-that-think http://edge.org/responses/what-do-you-think-about-machines-t...

ForHackernews 12y ago

Do you believe in consciousness? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie