(no title)
explaingarlic | 1 year ago
Either way, we are not going to see intelligent computers in our lifetime, let alone elephants. Don't mean to condemn them but sapio-genesis is often oversold as being too easy. We are nowhere near being capable of ourselves, we have just learned how to process things similarly to how brains do it, at a fraction of the efficacy and ten trillion times the cost.
ben_w|1 year ago
My dad was born before the first transistor was built, and died in 2014.
When he was born, reasonable people thought they'd never see a nuclear chain reaction, never see supersonic flight, never see space flight, never have men walking on the moon.
In his lifetime, even after the invention of the computer, reasonable people thought they would never in their lifetime have a machine beat the best human chess player. One of his specific anecdotes was about "fitting all of Shakespeare's works on a ball bearing".
Even as late as 2004, the script writers for "I, Robot" considered it sensible to have that memetic Will Smith line "Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?" — my dad never saw Stable Diffusion or ChatGPT, but he would have if he'd lived the average life expectancy.
No matter what exactly it is that you mean by "intelligent" such that it excludes what computers already demonstrate, a lifetime is a long time, and a lot can change.
explaingarlic|1 year ago
Supersonic flight is a question of manufacturing processes more than anything; we could always scale engines to make more power, just that making them light while being producible to a specific degree of accuracy was difficult.
Nuclear fission was discovered in 1938 and implemented successfully in 1945. Of course nobody would have thought of it - just like how I would never have thought of a ladder if I never saw one and never had a need for one. It's a question of looking at the fundamental laws and materials of matter, finding their inner workings and theorizing more useful ways of using these inner workings. We didn't put a stupid amount of effort into nuclear fission relative to how much it changed the world - I'm willing to bet that more cost has been put into r&d for office furniture than for the nuclear bomb.
Chess is a simple game of calculation, not a sign of intelligence. It merely reflects the ability to calculate, which is the strength of scalable computers. It just so happens that we came up with computers and they work well in this space - there's no telling of things we haven't discovered because we haven't thought to implement anything to do with them.
Sure, computers can write symphonies, but they are very far away from inventing something like a symphony. Which I would describe as something close to sapiogenesis.
I maintain that intelligence won't be cracked in my lifetime, knowing that I could look silly doing so. We can't even quantify what intelligence is, let alone begin to work towards it.
throwaway290|1 year ago