wind_dude t1_j9ro57j wrote
No, absolutely not. First AGI is just a theory, it's not possible on modern logic based hardware, quantum is a possibility. Even if we do achieve it, it's fragile, just unplug it. 2nd, we've had nuclear weapons for close to 80 years, and we're still here, that's a much more real and immediate threat to our demise.
​
As a thought experiment, it's not bad...
VirtualHat t1_j9rqmii wrote
This is very far from the current thinking in AI research circles. Everyone I know believes intelligence is substrate independent and, therefore, could be implemented in silicon. The debate is really more about what constitutes AGI and if we're 10 years or 100 years away, not if it can be done at all.
wind_dude t1_j9rv2vw wrote
Would you admit a theory that may not be possible and than devote your life to working on it? Even if you don't you're going to say it, and eventually believe it. And the definitions do keep moving with lower bars as the media and companies sensationalise for clicks and funding.
currentscurrents t1_j9rt3wq wrote
Quantum neural networks are an interesting idea, but our brain is certainly not sitting in a vat of liquid nitrogen, so intelligence must be possible without it.
The brain was created by an optimization process (evolution) - it's no coincidence that the entire field of machine learning is about the study of optimization processes too. It must be possible for intelligence to arise through optimization; and it does seem to be working better than anything else so far.
wind_dude t1_j9ru6yc wrote
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-021-00845-4
https://www.nature.com/articles/440611a
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-brains-quantum.html
​
Considering in 355 BC Aristotle thought the brain was a radiator, it's not a far leap to think were wrong that it uses electrical impulses like a computer. And I'm sure after quantum mechanics there will be something else. Although we have far more understanding than 2000 years ago, we are very far from the understanding we will have in 2000 years.
currentscurrents t1_j9rw3uy wrote
That's like saying we're wrong about out aerodynamics and how birds fly, because Aristotle was wrong about it and we'll understand flight very differently in 2000 years.
These articles don't represent the mainstream neuroscience position. It pretty clearly does use electrical impulses. You can stick in an electrode array and read them directly, or you can stick someone in an fMRI and see the electrical patterns. It also pretty clearly uses chemical signalling, which you can alter with drugs. We've seen no structures that appear to perform quantum computation.
wind_dude t1_j9rwt70 wrote
>Quantum neural networks are an interesting idea, but our brain is certainly not sitting in a vat of liquid nitrogen, so intelligence must be possible without it.
look at the links I shared above.
​
Recreating actual intelligence, what the definition of AGI was 6 months ago, will not be possible on logic based computers. I have never said it's not possible. There's a number of reasons it is not currently possible, the number 1 that we don't have a full understanding of intelligence, and recent theories suggest it's not logic based like previously theorised, but quantum based.
Look at the early history of attempting to fly, for centuries humans strapped wings to their arms and attempted to fly like birds.
currentscurrents t1_j9rxyne wrote
Most of these links are highly philosophical and none of them address the question of how the brain would usefully retain qubit stability at body temperature.
The evidence they present is very weak or non-existent, and the newscientist article acknowledges this is not the mainstream neuroscience position.
Meanwhile there is heaps of evidence that electrical and chemical signaling is involved; fiddling with either of them directly affects your conscious experience.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments