= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jacob_cannell comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (613)
Why is AGI a math problem? What is abstract about it?
We don't need math proofs to know if AGI is possible. It is, the brain is living proof.
We don't need math proofs to know how to build AGI - we can reverse engineer the brain.
This is a good part of the guts of it. That bit of it is a math problem:
http://timtyler.org/sequence_prediction/
There may be a few clues in there - but engineers are likely to get to the goal looong before the emulators arrive - and engineers are math-friendly.
A 'few clues' sounds like a gross underestimation. It is the only working example, so it certainly contains all the clues, not just a few. The question of course is how much of a shortcut is possible. The answer to date seems to be: none to slim.
I agree engineers reverse engineering will succeed way ahead of full emulation, that wasn't my point.
If information is not extracted and used, it doesn't qualify as being a "clue".
The search oracles and stockmarketbot makers have paid precious little attention to the brain. They are based on engineering principles instead.
Most engineers spend very little time on reverse-engineering nature. There is a little "bioinspiration" - but inspiration is a bit different from wholescale copying.