Snoo58061 t1_jdjdy56 wrote
Reply to comment by stimulatedecho in [D] "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4" contained unredacted comments by QQII
I like to call this positive agnosticism. I don't know and I'm positive nobody else does either.
Tho I lean towards the theory of mind camp. General intelligence shouldn't have to read the whole internet to be able to hold a conversation. The book in the Searle's Chinese Room is getting bigger.
E_Snap t1_jdjug2q wrote
That’s a magical requirement, dude. We as humans have to study for literal years on a nonstop feed of examples of other humans’ behavior in order to be a competent individual. Why are you saying that an AI shouldn’t have to go through that same kind of development? At least for them, it only has to happen once. With humans, every instance of the creature starts out flat out pants-on-head rtrdd.
Snoo58061 t1_jdjvybp wrote
I'm saying it's not the same kind of development and the results are different. A human works for a long time to grasp the letters and words at all, then extracts much more information from many orders of magnitude smaller data sets with weaker specific recall and much faster convergence for a given domain.
To be clear I think AGI is possible and that we've made a ton of progress, but I just don't think that scale is the only missing piece here.
E_Snap t1_jdjwmkp wrote
Honestly, I have a very hard time believing that. Machine learning has had an almost trailblazing relationship with the neuroscience community for years now, and it’s pretty comical. The number of moments where neuroscientists discover a structure or pattern developed for machine learning years and years ago and and then finally admit “Oh yeah… I guess that is how we worked all along,” is too damn high to be mere coincidence.
Snoo58061 t1_jdjxmti wrote
The brain almost certainly doesn't use backpropgation. Liquid nets are a bit more like neurons than the current state of the art Most of this stuff is old theory refined with more compute and data.
These systems are hardly biologically plausible. Not that biological plausibility is a requirement for general intelligence.
Western-Image7125 t1_jdnvnu7 wrote
Well your last line kinda makes the same point as the other person you are debating with? What if we are getting really close to actual intelligence, even though it is nothing like biological intelligence which is the only kind we know of
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments