Artificial Intelligence

[I_am_not_mafia]

I was trying to demonstrate that we don't have enough processing power and that the more generalisable the adaptive solution, the more complex it will be and the more processing power will be required. I don't know how much processing power is required but it's more than most people think that it is. Not only that but we will need to evolve our solutions (something I tried to demonstrate above). The more complex our adaptive solutions are more the more processing is required to configure it.

 
But you -cannot- know this, unless you have a range of "x" to begin with.

So practical experience counts for nothing in your book? Practical experience of myself and the entire field over several decades?

  You may think it's more than most people think, but you -cannot- know that either.

Again real world experience. Just look at this thread for example at people extrapolating non-adaptive smart programming and thinking that we're almost there. The field has been 'almost there' for the last five decades which is why there have been AI winters. Real world experience of how R&D sells 'A.I' but which are essentially just statistical techniques for very specialised purposes.

 You (we, the royal we) have failed to create strong ai, in your estimation...

It's not a binary thing. It's not like you suddenly get AI working or consciousness working. In your deleted example, the brain itself degrades gracefully as it is increasingly damaged. Some people are more or less conscious or intelligent than others.t's like you aren't having a discussio


I have created strong AI functions. They don't do much but they are very good at what they do do, and they most certainly generalise and adapt well.

and you've decided that the processing power available is responsible for that at least in part-

Again you are mistaking what I am saying. I am saying that people do not appreciate how much processing power is required. I tried to explain why but you have fought me at every step even when it agrees with exactly what you are saying.

 Perhaps we are currently capable of building a machine with -many times- the processing power required, we have simply failed to leverage that processing power.  It is impossible for you to know, or even hold an informed position, let alone provide compelling evidence or valid argument

But that is not a falsifiable statement and therefore not scientific. That's like saying that we cannot know that God does not exist. In practise there is no evidence to suggest that God does exist, there is no evidence to suggest that we are capable of building a machine with many times the processing power required for artificial general intelligence, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that there isn't.

All we can do is go by the evidence and there is a hell of a lot of it. This is how the scientific method works. This is why we still talk about the theory of evolution even though for all intents and purposes it is fact.

Because until we come up with a technique that is as efficient as you theorise is possible, we need to carry on working with what we have.

I am not saying that strong AI requires a certain amount of processing power or that it needs to model what we see in the brain. I do personally believe that it needs to be wholly self organising though (I won't explain why). I was railing against a top down approach where people point at something that they have simulated and claim that they have reproduced something. It's like drawing a picture of a house and pretending that you have built shelter. The function of both is completely different.

You absolutely are and continue to say precisely that.  You've decided that it requires an amount "x",  x being: greater than we can build with current architectures, but presumably equal to or less than what we, in ourselves, possess.   

It's pointless to carry on with this if I say one thing and you tell me that I am saying something completely different. This is not a one-off, you have been doing throughout the entire thread. If you want to convince yourself that I am saying something completely different then whatever makes you happy. I'm not going to waste my time. It's also pointless to continue if you don't take real world evidence into account because it does not fit in with your theory.

I was trying to enlighten people and I went to great efforts to do so.  But if you're going to dismiss everything that I say that does not fit into your personal theory then I am wasting my time.