| |
| ▲ | shkkmo 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Because meat isn't magic. Anything that can be computed inside your physical body, can be calculated in an "artificially" constructed replica That is a big assumption and my doubts aren't based on any soul "magic" but on our historical inability to replicate all kinds of natural mechanisms. Instead we create analogs that work differently. We can't make machines that fly like birds but we can make airplanes that fly faster and carry more. Some of this is due to the limits of artificial construction and some of it is due to the differences in our needs driving the design choices. Meat isn't magic, but it also isn't silicon. It's possible that our "meat" architecture depends on a low internal latency, low external latency, quantum effects and/or some other biological quirks that simply can't be replicated directly on silicon based chip architectures. It's also possible they are chaotic systems that can't be replicated and each artificial human brain would require equivalent levels of experience and training in ways that don't make the any more cheaper or available than humans. It's also possible we have found some sort of local maximum in cognition and even if we can make an artificial human brain, we can't make it any smarter than we are. There are some good reasons to think it is plausibly possible, but we are simply too far away from doing it to know for sure whether it can be done. It definitely is not a "forgone conclusion". | | |
| ▲ | quantummagic 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > We can't make machines that fly like birds Not only can we, they're mere toys : https://youtu.be/gcTyJdPkDL4?t=73 -- I don't know how you can believe in science and engineering, and not believe all of these: 1. Anything that already exists, the universe is able to construct, (ie. the universe fundamentally accommodates the existence of intelligent objects) 2. There is no "magic". Anything that happens ultimately follows the rules of nature, which are observable, and open to understanding and manipulation by humans. 3. While some things are astronomically (literally) difficult to achieve, that doesn't nullify #2 4. Ergo, while it might be difficult, there is fundamentally no reason to believe that the creation of an intelligent object is outside the capabilities of humans. The universe has already shown us their creation is possible. This is different than, for instance, speculating that science will definitely allow us to live forever. There is no existence proof for such a thing. But there is no reason to believe that we can't manipulate and harness intelligence. Maybe it won't be with Von Neumann, maybe it won't be with silicon, maybe it won't be any smarter than we are, maybe it will require just as much training as us; but with enough time, it's definitely within our reach. It's literally just science and engineering. | | |
| ▲ | shkkmo 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > 1. Anything that already exists, the universe is able to construct I didn't claim it is possible we couldn't build meat brains. I claimed it is possible that equivalent or better performance might only be obtainable by meats brains. > 2. There is no "magic". Anything that happens ultimately follows the rules of nature, which are observable, and open to understanding and manipulation by humans. I actually don't believe the last part. There are quite plausibly laws of nature that we can't understand. I think it's actually pretty presumptuous that we will/can eventually understand and master every law of nature. We've already proven that we can't prove every true thing about natural numbers. I think there might well be limits on what is knowable about our universe (atleast from inside of it.) > 4. Ergo, while it might be difficult, there is fundamentally no reason to believe that the creation of an intelligent object is outside the capabilities of humans. I didn't say that I believed that humans can't create intelligent objects. I believe we probably can and depending on how you want to define "intelligence", we already have. What I said is that it is not a forgone conclusion that we will create "a better therapist, doctor, architect". I think it is pretty likely but not certain. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | jakelazaroff 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Even if we grant that for the sake of argument, there are two leaps of faith here: - That AI as it currently exists is on the right track to creating that replica. Maybe neural networks will plateau before we get close. Maybe the Von Neumann architecture is the limiting factor, and we can only create the replica with a radically different model of computing! - That we will have enough time. Maybe we'll accomplish it by the end of the decade. Maybe climate change or nuclear war will turn the world into a Mad Max–esque wasteland before we get the chance. Maybe it'll happen in a million years, when humans have evolved into other species. We just don't know! | | |
| ▲ | quantummagic 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think you've refuted the point though. There's no reason to think that the apparatus we employ to animate ourselves will remain inscrutable forever. Unless you believe in a religious soul, all that stands in the way of the scientific method yielding results, is time. > Maybe climate change or nuclear war will turn the world into a Mad Max–esque wasteland before we get the chance In that eventuality, it really doesn't matter. The point remains, given enough time, we'll be successful. If we aren't successful, that means everything else has gone to shit anyway. Failure wont be because it is fundamentally impossible, it will be because we ran out of time to continue the effort. | | |
| ▲ | jakelazaroff 4 days ago | parent [-] | | No one has given a point to refute? The OP offered up the unsubstantiated belief that AI will some day be better than doctors/therapists/etc. You've added that it's not impossible — which, sure, whatever, but that's not really relevant to what we're discussing, which is whether it will happen to our society. | | |
| ▲ | quantummagic 4 days ago | parent [-] | | OP didn't specify a timeline or that it would happen for us personally to behold. Just that it is inevitable. You've correctly pointed out that there are things that can slow or even halt progress, but I don't think that undermines (what I at least see as) the main point. That there's no reason to believe anything fundamental stands in our way of achieving full "artificial intelligence"; ie. the doubters are being too pessimistic. Citing the destruction of humanity as a reason why we might fail can be said about literally every single other human pursuit as well; which to my mind, renders it a rather unhelpful objection to the idea that we will indeed succeed. | | |
| ▲ | jakelazaroff 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The article is about Illinois banning AI therapists in our society today, so I think the far more reasonable interpretation is that OP is also talking about our society today — or at least, in the near-ish future. (They also go on to talk about how it would affect different people in our society, which I think also points to my interpretation.) And to be clear, I'm not even objecting to OP's claim! All I'm asking for is an affirmative reason to believe what they see as a foregone conclusion. | | |
| ▲ | quantummagic 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, I've already overstepped polite boundaries in answering for the OP. Maybe you're right, and he thinks such advancements are right around the corner. On my most hopeful days, I do. Let's just hope that the short term reason for failure isn't a Mad Max hellscape. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | treespace8 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Haven't we found that there is a limit? Math itself is an abstraction. There is always a conversion process (Turning the real world into a 1 or a 0) that has an error rate. IE 0.000000000000001 is rounded to 0. Every automation I have seen needs human tuning in order to keep working. The more complicated, the more tuning. This is why self driving cars and voice to text still rely on a human to monitor, and tune. Meat is magic. And can never be completely recreated artificially. | |
| ▲ | pmarreck 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Anything that can be computed inside your physical body, can be calculated in an "artificially" constructed replica. What's hilarious about this argument (besides the fact that it smacks of the map-territory relation fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation) is that for most of my life (53 years), we've been trying not just to simulate a nematode or Drosophila (two of the most-studied creatures of all time- note that we COMPLETELY understand their nervous systems) and failed to create anything remotely convincing of "life" (note that WE are the SOLE judgers of what is "alive", there is no 100% foolproof mechanistic algorithm to detect "life" (look up the cryptobiosis of tardigrades or wood frogs for an extra challenge)... therein lies part of the problem), but we cannot even convincingly simulate a single cell's behavior in any generous span of time (so for example, using a month to compute 10 seconds of a cell's "life"). And yes, there have been projects attempting to do those things this entire time. You should look them up. Tons of promise, zero delivery. > Given enough time, we'll create that replica, there's no reason to think otherwise. Note how structurally similar this is to a "God of the gaps" argument (just substitute "materialism-given-unlimited-time" for "God"). And yet... I agree that we should continue to try. I just think we will discover something interesting in... never succeeding, ever... while you will continue to refer to the "materialism-given-unlimited-time of the gaps" argument, assuming (key word there) that it must be successful. Because there can't possibly be anything else going on. LOL. Naive. (Side note, but related: I couldn't help noticing that most of the AI doomers are materialist atheists.) | |
| ▲ | kevin_thibedeau 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's sort of nice when medical professionals have real emotions and can relate to their patients. A machine emulation won't ever do the same. It will be like a narcissist faking empathy. |
|
