It’s also parametrically constrained. There is no calculation that says flip the board and storm out. Or turn the pieces into projectiles and induce human to mechanically throw them at other player.
-
-
Replying to @wolfejosh @MattJoass and
Yes. So there’s a finite list of *types of tasks* it can attempt - & we can describe what they are. Which is to say: it’s not a universal explainer. Ergo: it’s no AGI. With an actual AGI it’s impossible in principle to list the types of tasks it might attempt. As with all people.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @DKedmey @ToKTeacher and
FWIW, I have come to suspect that intelligence is the ability to make models (usually in the service of regulation), and there is a class of universal function approximators that can (given enough time and resources) solve any problem that can be solved by a computational system.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I suspect that our brain implements such a universal learning system, together with attentional biases, some pre-wiring and a complex evolved reward function. This may be all that makes us human (together with our training with environmental data).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It that hunch is true, then intelligence is much more substrate independent than most folks in the cognitive sciences would think. There is also reason to think that the core functionality must be easy to implement (even though we did not have the right idea yet).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
So, I'd say: Humans are generally intelligent (but it requires breaking out of certain local optima that are epistemology breaking belief attractors due to our co-evolution with religion). That means that a scalable generally intelligent machine will beat humans on all dimensions
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @ToKTeacher and
Appreciate these thoughts and will spend time thinking about it. One quick question: What happens if our in-built / culturally endowed regulation is just a starting point...and modeling can rewrite it? Could intelligence service something more?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DKedmey @ToKTeacher and
That is exactly what the idea of enlightenment is about.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @ToKTeacher and
Do you think enlightenment might reshape the entire universe? Seems related to the
@DavidDeutschOxf concept of the quest for good explanations.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If you define “universe” as “the dream of reality generated by the neocortex” then yes, enlightenment is literally reshaping the entire universe that you subjectively inhabit.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @ToKTeacher and
I do, sort of. I read the story of Helen Keller, suggested by Karl Popper. I see how we all blindly grope around to understand. And how that’s all there is to reality. To call it a dream of the neocortex? I don’t know what to think...pic.twitter.com/t95BZZoZTb
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DKedmey @ToKTeacher and
There seems to be a ground truth, an implementation of the universe, but it is very unlike what we perceive. We are not groping blindly, because we discovered mathematical theories of the nature of modeling itself.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.