This is supposed to be a trivially true statement, and yet it sounds controversial somehow, doesn’t it?
It seems far from trivially true to me. Compare: “you can’t understand human intelligence without understanding amoeba intelligence”. Yet the people who know the most about human intelligence may never have studied amoebas; nor does studying amoebas seem likely to be on the shortest path to AGI.
“you can’t understand human intelligence without understanding amoeba intelligence”
That does sound less trivially true, I agree. I am not sure what the difference is exactly…
nor does studying amoebas seem likely to be on the shortest path to AGI.
I don’t see how this follows. Not studying amoebas, per se, but the basic blocks of intelligence starting somewhere around the level of an amoeba, whatever they might turn out to be.
It seems far from trivially true to me. Compare: “you can’t understand human intelligence without understanding amoeba intelligence”. Yet the people who know the most about human intelligence may never have studied amoebas; nor does studying amoebas seem likely to be on the shortest path to AGI.
Do you think
understand how neurons work? Or might they be operating at a different level (of abstraction) like behavior?
That does sound less trivially true, I agree. I am not sure what the difference is exactly…
I don’t see how this follows. Not studying amoebas, per se, but the basic blocks of intelligence starting somewhere around the level of an amoeba, whatever they might turn out to be.