Remix.run Logo
sixo 3 days ago

On the contrary, we have one working example of general intelligence (humans) and zero of quantum computing.

3 days ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
glitchc 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's covered in the biological construct part.

And no, we definitely do have quantum computers. They're just not practical yet.

bee_rider 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do we have a specific enough definition of general intelligence that we can exclude all non-human animals?

mattnewton 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why does it need to exclude all non human animals? Could it not be a difference of degree rather than of kind?

bee_rider 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The post I was responding to had

> On the contrary, we have one working example of general intelligence (humans)

I think some animals probably have what most people would informally call general intelligence, but maybe there’s some technical definition that makes me wrong.

mitthrowaway2 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Their point is not in any way weakened if you read "one working example" as "at least one working example".

bee_rider 3 days ago | parent [-]

Oh, good point, I hadn’t noticed the alternative reading. That makes sense, then.

dsubburam 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I do not know how "general intelligence" is defined, but there are a set of features we humans have that other animals mostly don't, as per the philosopher Roger Scruton[1], that I am reproducing from memory (errors mine):

1. Animals have desires, but do not make choices

We can choose to do what we do not desire, and choose not to do what we desire. For animals, one does not need to make this distinction to explain their behavior (Occam's razor)--they simply do what they desire.

2. Animals "live in a world of perception" (Schopenhauer)

They only engage with things as they are. They do not reminisce about the past, plan for the future, or fantasize about the impossible. They do not ask "what if?" or "why?". They lack imagination.

3. Animals do not have the higher emotions that require a conceptual repertoire

such as regret, gratitude, shame, pride, guilt, etc.

4. Animals do not form complex relationships with others

Because it requires the higher emotions like gratitude and resentment, and concepts such as rights and responsibilities.

5. Animals do not get art or music

We can pay disinterested attention to a work of art (or nature) for its own sake, taking pleasure from the exercise of our rational faculties thereof.

6. Animals do not laugh

I do not know if the science/philosophy of laughter is settled, but it appears to me to be some kind of phenomenon that depends on civil society.

7. Animals lack language

in the full sense of being able to engage in reason-giving dialogue with others, justifying your actions and explaining your intentions.

Scruton believed that all of the above arise together.

I know this is perhaps a little OT, but I seldom if ever see these issues mentioned in discussions about AGI. Maybe less applicable to super-intelligence, but certainly applicable to the "artificial human" part of the equation.

[1] Philosophy: Principles and Problems. Roger Scruton

jibal 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If some animals also have general intelligence then we have more than one example, so this simply isn't relevant.

Fricken 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

We're fixated on human intelligence but a computer cannot even emulate the intelligence of a honeybee or an ant.

fastball 3 days ago | parent [-]

How do you mean? AFAICT computers can definitely do that.

Sure, it won't be the size of an ant, but we definitely have models running on computers that have much more complexity than the life of an ant.

Jensson 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Sure, it won't be the size of an ant, but we definitely have models running on computers that have much more complexity than the life of an ant.

Do we? Where is the model that can run an ant and navigate a 3d environment, parse visuals and different senses to orient itself, figure out where it can climb to get to where it needs to go. Then put that in an average forest and navigate trees and other insects and try to cooperate with other ants and find its way back. Or build an anthill, an ant can build an anthill, full of tunnels everywhere that doesn't collapse without using a plan.

Do we have such a model? I don't think we have anything that can do that yet. Waymo is trying to solve a much simpler problem and they still struggle, so I am pretty sure we still can't run anything even remotely as complex as an ant. Maybe a simple worm, but not an ant.

Fricken 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Having aptitude in mathematics was once considered the highest form of human intelligence, yet a simple pocket calculator can beat the pants off most humans at arithmetic tasks.

Conversely, something we regard as simple, such as selecting a key from a keychain and using to unlock a door not previously encountered is beyond the current abilities of any machine.

I suspect you might be underestimating the real complexity of what bees and ants do. Self-driving cars as well seemed like a simpler problem before concerted efforts were made to build one.

dragonwriter 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Having aptitude in mathematics was once considered the highest form of human intelligence, yet a simple pocket calculator can beat the pants off most humans at arithmetic tasks.

Mathematics has been a lot more than arithmetic for... a very long time.

Jensson 3 days ago | parent [-]

But arithmetics was seen as requiring intelligence, as did chess.

jibal 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No one said "exclusively humans", and that's not relevant.

adastra22 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There are many working quantum computers…

sixo 2 days ago | parent [-]

ah, I mean, working in the sense of OP: that a system which overcomes the "engineering hurdles" is actually feasible and will be successful.

To be blocked merely by "engineering hurdles" puts QC in approximately the same place as fusion.

adastra22 2 days ago | parent [-]

There are working quantum computers that are not only feasible, but exist, can be rented on the cloud, and are people pay money to use.

Whether these are a commercial success at this point in time is missing the forest for the trees. A LOT of money has been put into getting as far as we have, and the limited market for using these machines at the moment means that getting a return on investment right now is difficult. But this is/has been true of every new technology.

And quantum computers are getting better & more energy efficient year-by-year.