In principle, it seems like AI should be possible. Yet what reason do we have to think we will work it out on any time frame worth discussing? It’s worth reflecting on what the holy grail of AI seems to be: creating something that combines the best of human and machine intelligence. This goal only makes sense unless you think they are two very different things. And the differences run deeper than that. We have:
Different driving forces in development: gene survival vs. specific goals of thinking humans
Different design styles: a blind watchmaker notorious for jury-rigged products, working over a very long period of time vs. design by people with significant ability to reflect on what they’re doing, working over a short period of time
Different mechanisms for combining innovations: sex vs. sharing information in a way accessible to minds
Different micro-circuitry: digital logic circuits vs. neurons—messy bags of cytosol relying on neurotransmitters, ions, ion channels, all devices with analog behavior
*Different overall design vision: Von Neumann architecture vs. nothing so straightforward as von Neumann architecture.
Do you get what I’m saying? Why think that within a few lifetimes we can replicate the fruits of millions of years of evolution, using something entirely different than the thing we’re trying to replicate?
Oh, and chew on this: we don’t even understand how the nematode worm brain works.
Eliezer--
In principle, it seems like AI should be possible. Yet what reason do we have to think we will work it out on any time frame worth discussing? It’s worth reflecting on what the holy grail of AI seems to be: creating something that combines the best of human and machine intelligence. This goal only makes sense unless you think they are two very different things. And the differences run deeper than that. We have:
Different driving forces in development: gene survival vs. specific goals of thinking humans Different design styles: a blind watchmaker notorious for jury-rigged products, working over a very long period of time vs. design by people with significant ability to reflect on what they’re doing, working over a short period of time Different mechanisms for combining innovations: sex vs. sharing information in a way accessible to minds Different micro-circuitry: digital logic circuits vs. neurons—messy bags of cytosol relying on neurotransmitters, ions, ion channels, all devices with analog behavior *Different overall design vision: Von Neumann architecture vs. nothing so straightforward as von Neumann architecture.
Do you get what I’m saying? Why think that within a few lifetimes we can replicate the fruits of millions of years of evolution, using something entirely different than the thing we’re trying to replicate?
Oh, and chew on this: we don’t even understand how the nematode worm brain works.