←back to thread

174 points Philpax | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
dmwilcox ◴[] No.43722753[source]
I've been saying this for a decade already but I guess it is worth saying here. I'm not afraid AI or a hammer is going to become intelligent (or jump up and hit me in the head either).

It is science fiction to think that a system like a computer can behave at all like a brain. Computers are incredibly rigid systems with only the limited variance we permit. "Software" is flexible in comparison to creating dedicated circuits for our computations but is nothing by comparison to our minds.

Ask yourself, why is it so hard to get a cryptographically secure random number? Because computers are pure unadulterated determinism -- put the same random seed value in your code and get the same "random numbers" every time in the same order. Computers need to be like this to be good tools.

Assuming that AGI is possible in the kinds of computers we know how to build means that we think a mind can be reduced to a probabilistic or deterministic system. And from my brief experience on this planet I don't believe that premise. Your experience may differ and it might be fun to talk about.

In Aristotle's ethics he talks a lot about ergon (purpose) -- hammers are different than people, computers are different than people, they have an obvious purpose (because they are tools made with an end in mind). Minds strive -- we have desires, wants and needs -- even if it is simply to survive or better yet thrive (eudaimonia).

An attempt to create a mind is another thing entirely and not something we know how to start. Rolling dice hasn't gotten anywhere. So I'd wager AGI somewhere in the realm of 30 years to never.

replies(12): >>43722893 #>>43722938 #>>43723051 #>>43723121 #>>43723162 #>>43723176 #>>43723230 #>>43723536 #>>43723797 #>>43724852 #>>43725619 #>>43725664 #
preommr ◴[] No.43723162[source]
> why is it so hard to get a cryptographically secure random number? Because computers are pure unadulterated determinism

Then you've missed the part of software.

Software isn't computer science, it's not always about code. It's about solving problems in a way we can control and manufacture.

If we needed random numbers, we could easily use a hardware that uses some physics property, or we could pull in an observation from an api like the weather. We don't do these things because pseudo-random is good enough, and other solutions have drawbacks (like requiring an internet for api calls). But that doesn't mean software can't solve these problems.

replies(1): >>43723364 #
1. dmwilcox ◴[] No.43723364[source]
It's not about the random numbers it's about the tree of possibilities having to be defined up front (in software or hardware). That all inputs should be defined and mapped to some output and that this process is predictable and reproducible.

This makes computers incredibly good at what people are not good at -- predictably doing math correctly, following a procedure, etc.

But because all of the possibilities of the computer had to be written up as circuitry or software beforehand, it's variability of outputs is constrained to what we put into it in the first place (whether that's a seed for randomness or model weights).

You can get random numbers and feed it into the computer but we call that "fuzzing" which is a search for crashes indicating unhandled input cases and possible bugs or security issues.

replies(1): >>43723531 #
2. leptons ◴[] No.43723531[source]
No, you're missing what they said. True randomness can be delivered to a computer via a peripheral - an integrated circuit or some such device that can deliver true randomness is not that difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generat...

replies(1): >>43724160 #
3. lttlrck ◴[] No.43724160[source]
Maybe I'm misreading it but I think the OP understands that.

If you feed that true randomness into a computer, what use is it? Will it impair the computer at the very tasks in which it excels?

> That all inputs should be defined and mapped to some output and that this process is predictable and reproducible.

replies(1): >>43724929 #
4. leptons ◴[] No.43724929{3}[source]
Chemical reactions are "predictable and reproducible", as well as quantum interactions, so does that make you a computer?

This comment thread is dull. I'm bailing out.