←back to thread

197 points baylearn | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.236s | source
Show context
bsenftner ◴[] No.44471917[source]
Also, AGI is not just around the corner. We need artificial comprehension for that, and we don't even have a theory how comprehension works. Comprehension is the fusing of separate elements into new functional wholes, dynamically abstracting observations, evaluating them for plausibility, and reconstituting the whole - and all instantaneously, for security purposes, of every sense constantly. We have no technology that approaches that.
replies(5): >>44472191 #>>44473051 #>>44473180 #>>44474879 #>>44476456 #
tenthirtyam ◴[] No.44472191[source]
You'd need to define "comprehension" - it's a bit like the Chinese room / Turing test.

If an AI or AGI can look at a picture and see an apple, or (say) with an artificial nose smell an apple, or likewise feel or taste or hear* an apple, and at the same identify that it is an apple and maybe even suggest baking an apple pie, then what else is there to be comprehended?

Maybe humans are just the same - far far ahead of the state of the tech, but still just the same really.

*when someone bites into it :-)

For me, what AI is missing is genuine out-of-the-box revolutionary thinking. They're trained on existing material, so perhaps it's fundamentally impossible for AIs to think up a breakthrough in any field - barring circumstances where all the component parts of a breakthrough already exist and the AI is the first to connect the dots ("standing on the shoulders of giants" etc).

replies(4): >>44472345 #>>44472378 #>>44472490 #>>44472942 #
1. add-sub-mul-div ◴[] No.44472490[source]
Was that the intention of the Chinese room concept, to ask "what else is there to be comprehended?" after producing a translation?