On: AI

[dicroce]

One thing that crosses my mind whenever I imagine creating a human level intelligence is that it takes humans YEARS of constant stimulation to begin to exhibit intelligent behavior... Sometimes I wonder if we'll have the algorithm may before we realize it...

[TophWells → dicroce]

Probably. I doubt it's possible to look at a piece of code and evaluate whether it's worth feeding it the equivalent of ten years of basic education. If we ever write a program that exhibits "creativity, or desire, or whatever you want to call it" on a basic level after however many months the researcher can afford to run it for, then it'll suddenly get a lot of funding and time and potential for growth.

For all we know, we already have the Algorithm and all we need to do is run it for years on the best computer available "just to see what happens".

[diminoten → dicroce]

We can stimulate a computer with the equivalent amount of information in much less time than years, though.

[Ygg2 → diminoten]

That's impossible I think. Do you get more out of TV by sitting in front of thirty of them?

You might say, we'll make the substrate faster. At best we'll shave of half of time every 18 months. At best.

[marcosdumay → diminoten]

We probably can't. Unless it's an extremely fast algorithm, we don't have the processing power to make it run faster than our brain.

We'll can in a couple of decades, probably. But not now.

[TeMPOraL → marcosdumay]

Brain seems to be slow (I read it was measured to run at 200Hz tops), but it's extremely parallelized and caches the livjng shit out of everything.

[auntienomen → TeMPOraL]

It also appears to have quite a remarkable instruction set.

[BlackDeath3 → dicroce]

Good point. How do you know if something works before you've put in the time to use it?