[HN Gopher] Why lifeless AI is not intelligent
___________________________________________________________________
Why lifeless AI is not intelligent
Author : HasanYousef
Score : 19 points
Date : 2021-11-21 14:41 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bdtechtalks.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (bdtechtalks.com)
| canjobear wrote:
| > The AI community usually turns to the brain to get inspiration
| for algorithms and new directions of research.
|
| ??? This isn't true. The author doesn't seem to have an
| understanding of modern AI.
| bendee983 wrote:
| Where does the inspiration for ANN/CNN/RNN come from?
| canjobear wrote:
| Neural networks originated from coarse-grained analogies to a
| 1940s understanding of neurons. That's about where the
| neuroscience connection ended. People have tried to make
| connections since then, but it's almost always post-hoc.
| bendee983 wrote:
| If you listen to recent talks by Hinton (Capsule networks),
| LeCun (self-supervised learning), and Bengio (system 2 deep
| learning), as well as others, you'll find plenty of
| references to neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science,
| etc. There are always implementation differences, but the
| inspiration from brains is always there. The point of the
| book (which might be wrong, btw) is that the brain itself
| is an agent of the gene, which has evolved out of the need
| for better survival mechanisms. Therefore, it is suggesting
| that anything that has been modeled after the brain is--by
| extension--an agent of the main source of human
| intelligence (because it serves the goals of humans) and
| not intelligent by itself.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| Hierarchical modeling. Spiking neural nets. Fire together,
| wire together. Convolution. Boltzmann nets. Autoencoding.
| LSTM gating. Attention, transformers, gans, etc.
|
| GOFAI might not pull inspiration from the brain, but
| connectionist style AI, which represents the vast majority of
| ai being produced and operated, almost exclusively uses
| brains for inspiration.
| xenocyon wrote:
| Is this simply an argument in favor of genetic algorithms or is
| there more to it than that?
| hmry wrote:
| Sure, if you define "intelligence" as "solving problems in a
| variety of environments to accomplish your own goals and self-
| replicate", then no, modern AI is not intelligent. You have just
| redefined intelligence so that only living beings can be
| intelligent.
| Jensson wrote:
| A computer virus that evolves and spreads and is too elusive
| for humans to eliminate would fit that scenario. I think the
| point is that as long as humans defines what the AI should do
| it will never be intelligent, it will only become intelligent
| when we lose control of it.
|
| I think that was his point, not sure I agree with it but at
| least it isn't trivially wrong.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Isn't that just moving the goalpost to a higher level of
| abstraction? You could envision an AI were the only
| instruction is spread yourself. In that quest it could create
| a vastly more impressive society of AI agents with their own
| culture.
|
| Humans have instructions too, which are rooted in evolution
| and biology. It's not at all clear to me how an AI that
| follows an instruction must, per definition, be considered
| unintelligent. That would imply Humans are unintelligent.
| pilooch wrote:
| My take on intelligence over the past 20y has been it is high
| quality / efficient search of immense state spaces.
|
| "Solving intelligence" as a famous corporation motto, might just
| be improving state-space search.
|
| Humans are incredible at state space search, it's obvious as soon
| as you consider the potential data pointsnof any problem we face
| every day, from washing dishes to designing algorithms.
| Retric wrote:
| You can abstract basically anything to state space search +
| optimization. It's essentially too wide a classification to be
| that useful.
| twofornone wrote:
| But that's literally what ML training does. Just like a
| human, neural nets learn heuristics to take advantage of the
| fact that of all the possible mappings of inputs to outputs,
| there are actually vanishingly few output states that are
| valid. Arguably all learning is indeed a reduction of state
| space, be it by human or machine.
| sgt101 wrote:
| Junk - not worth reading
| smitty1e wrote:
| I am stuck by a comparison between AI's limitations as captured
| in the article and the theoligical concept of angels.
|
| Such a qualitative comparison may offend some HN, but it's a
| useful means to communicate the idea of heavy "brainpower" that
| has constraints.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-21 23:02 UTC)