I don't think AGI is right around the corner

I think the only way that it’s actually impossible is if we believe that there’s something magical and fundamentally immeasurable about humans that leads to our general intelligence. Otherwise we’re just machines, after all. A human brain is theoretically reproducible outside standard biological mechanisms, if you have a good enough nanolathe.

Maybe our first AGI is just a Petri dish brain with a half-decent python API. Maybe it’s more sand-based, though.

> if we believe that there’s something magical and fundamentally immeasurable about humans that leads to our general intelligence

It’s called a soul for the believers.

If by "something magical" you mean something we don't understand, that's trivially true. People like to give firm opinions or make completely unsupported statements they feel should be taken seriously ("how do we know humans intelligence doesn't work the same way as next token prediction") about something nobody understand.

I mean something that’s fundamentally not understandable.

“What we don’t yet understand” is just a horizon.

Our silicon machines exist in a countable state space (you can easily assign a unique natural number to any state for a given machine). However, 'standard biological mechanisms' exist in an uncountable state space - you need real numbers to properly describe them. Cantor showed that the uncountable is infinitely more infinite (pardon the word tangle) than the countable. I posit that the 'special sauce' for sentience/intelligence/sapience exists beyond the countable, and so is unreachable with our silicon machines as currently envisaged.

I call this the 'Cardinality Barrier'

That’s an interesting thought. It steps beyond my realm of confidence, but I’ll ask in ignorance: can a biological brain really have infinite state space if there’s a minimum divisible Planck length?

Infinite and “finite but very very big” seem like a meaningful distinction here.

I once wondered if digital intelligences might be possible but would require an entire planet’s precious metals and require whole stars to power. That is: the “finite but very very big” case.

But I think your idea is constrained to if we wanted a digital computer, is it not? Humans can make intelligent life by accident. Surely we could hypothetically construct our own biological computer (or borrow one…) and make it more ideal for digital interface?

That is a really insightful take, thank you for sharing!

A brain in a jar, with wires so that we can communicate with it, already exists. Its called the internet. My brain is communicating with you now through wires. Replacing my keyboard with implanted electrodes may speed up the connection, but it wont fundimentally change the structure or capabilities of the machine.

> 'standard biological mechanisms' exist in an uncountable state space

Everything in our universe is countable, which naturally includes biology. A bunch of physical laws are predicated on the universe being a countable substrate.

Isn't a Planck length just the minimum for measurability?

Wait, are we all just Servitors?!

Physically speaking, we don’t know that the universe isn’t fundamentally discrete. But the more pertinent question is whether what the brain does couldn’t be approximated well enough with a finite state space. I’d argue that books, music, speech, video, and the like demonstrate that it could, since those don’t seem qualitatively much different from how other, analog inputs stimulate our intellect. Or otherwise you’d have to explain why an uncountable state space would be needed to deal with discrete finite inputs.

Can you explain why you think the state space of the brain is not finite? (Not even taking into account countability of infinities)

It sounds like you are making a distinction between digital (silicon computers) and analog (biological brains).

As far as possible reasons that a computer can’t achieve AGI go, this seems like the best one (assuming computer means digital computer of course).

But in a philosophical sense, a computer obeys the same laws of physics that a brain does, and the transistors are analog devices that are being used to create a digital architecture. So whatever makes you brain have uncountable states would also make a real digital computer have uncountable states. Of course we can claim that only the digital layer on top matters, but why?

Measurability is essentially a synonym for meaningful interaction at some measurement scale. When describing fundamental measurability limits, you're essentially describing what current physical models consider to be the fundamental interaction scale.

Cantor talks about countable and uncountable infinities, both computer chips and human brains are finite spaces. The human brain has roughly 100b neurons, even if each of these had an edge with each other and these edges could individually light up signalling different states of mind, isn't that just `2^100b!`? That's roughly as far away from infinity as 1.

Not quite. Smaller wavelengths mean higher energy, and a photon with Planck wavelength would be energetic enough to form a black hole. So you can’t meaningfully interact electromagnetically with something smaller than the Planck length. Nor can that something have electromagnetic properties.

But since we don’t have a working theory of quantum gravity at such energies, the final verdict remains open.

> and fundamentally immeasurable about humans that leads to our general intelligence

Isn't AGI defined to mean "matches humans in virtually all fields"? I don't think there is a single human capable of this.

-- A human brain is theoretically reproducible outside standard biological mechanisms, if you have a good enough nanolathe.

Sort of. The main issue is the energy requirements. We could theoretically reproduce a human brain in SW today, it's just that it would be a really big energy hog and run very slowly and probably become insane quickly like any person trapped in a sensory deprived tank.

The real key development for AI and AGI is down at the metal level of computers- the memristor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor

The synapse in a brain is essentially a memristive element, and it's a very taxing one on the neuron. The equations is (change in charge)/(change in flux). Yes, a flux capacitor, sorta. It's the missing piece in fundamental electronics.

Making simple 2 element memristors is somewhat possible these days, though I've not really been in the space recently. Please, if anyone knows where to buy them, a real one not a claimed to be one, let me know. I'm willing to pay good money.

In Terms of AI, a memristor would require a total redesign of how we architect computers ( goodbye busses and physically separate memory, for one). But, you'd get a huge energy and time savings benefit. As in, you can run an LLM on a watch battery or small solar cell and let the environment train them to a degree.

Hopefully AI will accelerate their discovery and facilitate their introduction into cheap processing and construction of chips.

But this signalling (and connections) may be more complex than connected/unconnected and on/off, such that we cannot completely describe them [digitally/using a countable state space] as we would with silicon.

>Maybe our first AGI is just a Petri dish brain with a half-decent python API.

https://www.oddee.com/australian-company-launches-worlds-fir...

the entire idea feels rather immoral to me, but it does exist.

If you think it can't be done with a countable state space, then you must know some physics that the general establishment doesn't. I'm sure they would love to know what you do.

As far as physicists believe at the moment, there's no way to ever observe a difference below the Planck level. Energy/distance/time/whatever. They all have a lower boundary of measurability. That's not as a practical issue, it's a theoretical one. According to the best models we currently have, there's literally no way to ever observe a difference below those levels.

If a difference smaller than that is relevant to brain function, then brains have a way to observe the difference. So I'm sure the field of physics eagerly awaits your explanation. They would love to see an experiment thoroughly disagree with a current model. That's the sort of thing scientists live for.

Please describe in detail how biological mechanisms are uncountable.

And then you need to show how the same logic cannot apply to non-biological systems.

Absolutely nothing in the real world is truly infinite. Infinity is just a useful mathematical fiction that closely approximate the real world for large enough (or small enough in the case of infinitesimals) things.

But biological brain have significantly greater state space than conventional silicon computers because they're analog. The voltage across a transistor varies approximately continuously, but we only measure a single bit from that (or occasionally 2 for nand).

I’m curious why you find it immoral?

> Maybe our first AGI is just a Petri dish brain with a half-decent python API

This reminds me of The Thought Emporium's project of teaching rat brain cells to play doom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEXefdbQDjw

Because the lack of semicolons is pure hubris and an affront to God

I don't think it particularly moral to start heading down a path wherein we are essentially aiming to create enslaved cloned vat brains. I know that's not what they have, and that they're nowhere near that, but if they succeed in these early stages, more and more complex systems will follow in time. I don't think it a particularly healthy direction to explore.