Comment by jonahx
8 years ago
> but have a hard time believing that can be done via computers.
Much of the skepticism isn't about whether this can be done in theory. It's about "how close" we are given the current state of the art (beating Go, chess, deep NN, etc).
One can be (I am) simultaneously blown away by these accomplishments and believe that we have hardly scratched the surface of AGI.
And while this isn't necessarily a deal breaker for AGI, it's not encouraging that we still understand close to nothing about consciousness.
> .. but have a hard time believing that can be done via computers.
> I don’t think anyone here disputes the logical possibility
> Much of the skepticism isn't about whether this can be done in theory
The math tells us it cannot be done with computers. Read Penrose.
> The math tells us it cannot be done with computers. Read Penrose.
I'm familiar with Penrose.
He's interesting, and I don't have a firm opinion on this (ie maybe it turns out it is impossible), but presenting the case as "the question of AGI has been settled by math" is really misleading. This is an area of open debate among philosophers, mathematicians, physicists, and evolutionary biologists.
Mainstream physicists, neuroscientists, and ML researchers are all more or less united in their view that Penrose is really overstepping the valid application of the arguments that he's using when he talks about this stuff. He really really wants quantum mechanics to be an important part of the intelligence/consciousness debates, so when he sees an indication that it could be relevant, he jumps to the conclusion that not only is it relevant, it is of paramount importance.
Penroses opinion is not exactly mainstream science in this area.