This post went viral yesterday at Mind Matters:
The 2014 science fiction film Transcendence featured a scientist who uploaded his consciousness into an AI program. Many people talk as though things like that are just around the corner. But industry pros say it isn’t really possible. Why not?
François Chollet, author of Keras, a framework for the Python deep learning language, offers a list of reasons, but starts by pointing to an underlying misconception: that a super-AI could be developed that would go on creating more super-AIs until something vastly more intelligent than a human being arises. He points out that such a process has not actually happened in the universe of which we have knowledge:
An overwhelming amount of evidence points to this simple fact: a single human brain, on its own, is not capable of designing a greater intelligence than itself. This is a purely empirical statement: out of billions of human brains that have come and gone, none has done so. Clearly, the intelligence of a single human, over a single lifetime, cannot design intelligence, or else, over billions of trials, it would have already occurred. François Chollet, “The Impossibility of Intelligence Explosion” at Medium
If we cannot design an intelligence, why do we think we can design a machine that can design an intelligence? ”
More. Software pioneer says general superhuman artificial intelligence is very unlikely” at Mind Matters
Is the idea surprising or what?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: See also: Should robots run for office? A tech analyst sees a threat to democracy if they don’t
Too late to prevent rule by The Algorithm? Dilbert’s creator, Scott Adams, tells Ben Shapiro why he thinks politicians soon won’t matter.
How AI could run the world Its killer apps, in physicist Max Tegmark’s tale, include a tsunami of “message” films
Human intelligence as a halting oracle (Eric Holloway)
Meaningful information vs. artificial intelligence (Eric Holloway)
More than 20 years ago (a Generation of humans), Math was supposed to take over Baseball. Math can’t take over football because a season is too short, but Baseballs plays LOTS of games every season. Hence by the All Star Break, statistical analysis should be able to tell a team’s manager how to play the remainder of the season. But that hasn’t happened.
There is a strong chance that Baseball AI COULD work, but in real life managers chicken out. And of course, if you don’t have some of the best talent in your league, then AI can only help you lose by smaller scores.
For politics, what the AI proponents are missing is that Political Leaders ENJOY running the show, staff opinions be damned. Very much like the captain of the Titanic: he COULD HAVE sailed further south, he COULD HAVE attempted to manage the flooding better, he COULD HAVE done a better job with getting people into lifeboats (although there weren’t enough in any case). But he was the CAPTAIN! And what’s the POINT of being Captain (or King) if you can’t be arbitrary and capricious just for the hell of it?
I agree with Chollet on the impossibility of a superhuman intelligent machine. However, this argument,
“Clearly, the intelligence of a single human, over a single lifetime, cannot design intelligence, or else, over billions of trials, it would have already occurred.”
is obviously nonsense. What billions of trials? Besides, A human could not design a digital computer a thousand years ago. It does not mean that a human cannot do so now.
PS. I do believe we will have superintelligent societies of machines for the same reason that we already have superintelligent societies of humans.
Echoing FourFaces,
Let X be anything that has not been designed by humans yet. Then:
Correction: I should say “echoing FourFaces’ critique of the article”.
Folks, while this is doubtless unfashionable, I think we should be cautious about too closely identifying the rational, responsible, credibly significantly free and powerfully creative mind with a computational substrate such as the brain. KF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chQvZrkznbg
as to:
I would certainly like to see a human brain try to design a human brain, (much less try to create a immaterial soul/mind to inhabit that human brain). Shoot, the ‘beyond belief’ complexity of the human brain is beyond current comprehension much less will it ever lend itself to authentic imitation.
To put this ‘beyond belief’ complexity in perspective, and just how far beyond man’s capacity to imitate it is, it is worth remembering just how clueless humans are at creating ‘simple’ life in the first place:
,,, And like a said previously, much less do humans have a clue how to create an immaterial soul/mind to inhabit that ‘beyond belief’ brain:
Verse: