Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Count Lucanor]

"Possibilists", which in some sense of the word might also be called idealists, tend to see forces operating beyond history and concrete human action, which lead them to believe that some things will happen just because they can happen. Actual human capabilities, resources and social dynamics are not taken as major factors. The truth is that the tech world is dominated by companies monopolizing and producing one specific type of technology that works as the base for AI: computers, and they push it mostly because it is the easiest way to make profits from it. They will be selling it as snake oil if necessary. We would hope that new, alternative technologies, are produced and get into the mainstream, not only of the tech business, but the whole domain of disciplines within STEM, but we can never know. They might also get killed in their infancy if they are not in the future envisioned by tech companies, governments and universities.

The title of this subforum asks for what is intelligence anyway. It seems that this question has not been really properly addressed. In Hawkins's book, he is concerned with the mammalian neocortex, but interestingly, a lot of what is being talked about as potential candidates for AI, involves organisms without neocortex. An amoeba operates with behavioral patterns that seem to pursue goals autonomously (even if it is pure metabolism), responds to environmental inputs and produce outputs, which seems what some interpret as all that is needed to identify intelligence. Is it?

[Lagayascienza]

Count Lucanor, no, I don’t think that is all that is needed to identify intelligence and nor does Hawkins.

There are two other books I'm reading which might interest you. They are :

Bennet, M. (2023) A Brief History of Intelligence: Why the Evolution of the Brain Holds the Key to the Future of AI. William Collins
Hiersinger, P. R., (2021) The Self-Assembling Brain: How Neural Networks Grow Smarter. Princeton University Press

Of necessity, these books contain the terms "computer" and "computation", but don't let those words rattle you. The authors do not argue that current computers have AGI, much less consciousness. They talk about the brain, its development, how it does what it does, and what would be needed to build AGI.

[Sy Borg]

In general, most discoveries and inventions come from doing what we've always done. That's why the majority of such breakthroughs are evolutionary, not revolutionary. I think it's also why we remember the ones that deviate from the 'norm'. Like carbon rings, double helices, or quantum entanglement...

In this case, it seems likely that the progress of AI research and development could perhaps do with something revolutionary; something that isn't what we've always done. We need a new and different insight, yes?

This isn't about "most discoveries", it's about discoveries that change the playing field. Any suggestion that there will be no more game-changing discoveries in AI - not in decades, even centuries - is clearly misguided.

Yes, it's about what I called "revolutionary" discoveries. And I'm pretty sure that no-one has suggested that there can or will be no such breakthroughs, but only that the field of AI could do with one or more such ground-breaking insights.

At least one member entirely denies any chance of ground-breaking discoveries in AI can lead to internal experience.

[Count Lucanor]

Count Lucanor, no, I don’t think that is all that is needed to identify intelligence and nor does Hawkins.

OK, let’s move up the evolutionary scale. Reptiles, birds, insects, they all have brains, neurons, synapsis, etc., which evidently are necessary to navigate the world with somehow complex behavior. Remember when we talked about spiders calculating the distance to their prey. There is, however, no neocortex. What do you think of that? If AI researchers replicated these operations, would it account as intelligence being achieved?

There are two other books I'm reading which might interest you. They are :

Bennet, M. (2023) A Brief History of Intelligence: Why the Evolution of the Brain Holds the Key to the Future of AI. William Collins
Hiersinger, P. R., (2021) The Self-Assembling Brain: How Neural Networks Grow Smarter. Princeton University Press

Of necessity, these books contain the terms "computer" and "computation", but don't let those words rattle you. The authors do not argue that current computers have AGI, much less consciousness. They talk about the brain, its development, how it does what it does, and what would be needed to build AGI.

Thanks again for the references. I’ve read a few books about the human brain, I would hope these will give new insights. I don’t have an issue with computation, as long as it is not identified with the type of operations the brain performs.

[Lagayascienza]

No. I think there is "computation" (broadly construed) happening in a spider's neural network but I think any intelligence would be at the lower end of the spectrum. While a spider must build a model of its world, a model which must be housed in its neural network, and although a spider exhibits goal seeking behaviours, there is little flexibility or learning ability compared to species with more complex brains. For AGI, I think there will need to be a neural network that emulates what goes in in the neocortex of more complex brains, and there will need to be some form of embodiment as per Harkins in his book.

If you have read his book yet, I'm wondering what you think of Hawkins' account of the structure and functioning of our brain and, in particular, of the neocortex?

[Pattern-chaser]

At least one member entirely denies any chance of ground-breaking discoveries in AI can lead to internal experience.

That, I think, is a different part of the discussion. Essentially, it wonders if artificial sentience can be meaningfully compared with biological sentience. That doesn't have a great deal to do with whether AI research needs a radical change of direction, does it?

[Sy Borg]

At least one member entirely denies any chance of ground-breaking discoveries in AI can lead to internal experience.

That, I think, is a different part of the discussion. Essentially, it wonders if artificial sentience can be meaningfully compared with biological sentience. That doesn't have a great deal to do with whether AI research needs a radical change of direction, does it?

The thread is not about radical changes in AI's direction, but its intelligence and potential to be truly intelligent.

[Lagayascienza]

Count Lucanor, no, I don’t think that is all that is needed to identify intelligence and nor does Hawkins.

OK, let’s move up the evolutionary scale. Reptiles, birds, insects, they all have brains, neurons, synapsis, etc., which evidently are necessary to navigate the world with somehow complex behavior. Remember when we talked about spiders calculating the distance to their prey. There is, however, no neocortex. What do you think of that? If AI researchers replicated these operations, would it account as intelligence being achieved?

There are two other books I'm reading which might interest you. They are :

Bennet, M. (2023) A Brief History of Intelligence: Why the Evolution of the Brain Holds the Key to the Future of AI. William Collins
Hiersinger, P. R., (2021) The Self-Assembling Brain: How Neural Networks Grow Smarter. Princeton University Press

Of necessity, these books contain the terms "computer" and "computation", but don't let those words rattle you. The authors do not argue that current computers have AGI, much less consciousness. They talk about the brain, its development, how it does what it does, and what would be needed to build AGI.

Thanks again for the references. I’ve read a few books about the human brain, I would hope these will give new insights. I don’t have an issue with computation, as long as it is not identified with the type of operations the brain performs.

Count Lucanor further to your question about spiders:

If what spiders do were replicated in an artificial substrate, I don’t think AGI will have been achieved in that artificial substrate. For AGI, I think you probably need conscious self-awareness.

Sentience is one thing. Conscious awareness is another. If sentience is the ability to experience feelings and sensations, then all animals must have some degree of sentience or they would be unable to negotiate their world.

However, sentience may not necessarily imply higher cognitive functions such as self-awareness, reasoning, or complex thought processes. If general intelligence (GI) is what humans have, and if our GI requires conscious awareness, reasoning, and complex thought processes, then I’d say that spiders do not have GI. And I think the reason they do not have it is because they do not have a neocortex. Therefore, for AGI, I think what goes on in the neocortex of our brains will need to be emulated in an artificial substrate.

That substrate won’t have to be a replica of a neocortex, but it will have to do what a neocortex does. So the question becomes, can the processes that occur in the neocortex be emulated to the requisite degree in an artificial substrate. I think there is reason to think they can and so I think AGI is possible.

[Pattern-chaser]

The thread is not about radical changes in AI's direction, but its intelligence and potential to be truly intelligent.

Indeed so. But what if "radical changes in AI's direction" are necessary for AI to fulfil its "potential to be truly intelligent"? If 'true' (?) intelligence (not merely the pretence of intelligence) is the aim, then a change to the current direction of AI development is necessary, yes?

[Sy Borg]

The thread is not about radical changes in AI's direction, but its intelligence and potential to be truly intelligent.

Indeed so. But what if "radical changes in AI's direction" are necessary for AI to fulfil its "potential to be truly intelligent"? If 'true' (?) intelligence (not merely the pretence of intelligence) is the aim, then a change to the current direction of AI development is necessary, yes?

I have been saying that radical changes in AI are likely in the future for about ten pages. Did you notice?

Note: I am not thinking about what happens in our puny lifetimes.

[Belinda]

Pattern-chaser wrote:
"The thread is not about radical changes in AI's direction, but its intelligence and potential to be truly intelligent."

Belinda replies:
Can an AI act against all its instincts, knowledge, reason, and memories so as to commit an act entirely out of character ,purely in order to prove it can do so?

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser wrote:
"The thread is not about radical changes in AI's direction, but its intelligence and potential to be truly intelligent."

Belinda replies:
Can an AI act against all its instincts, knowledge, reason, and memories so as to commit an act entirely out of character ,purely in order to prove it can do so?

AI, current AI, has no "instincts" or "reason". It has "knowledge" and "memory" only in the sense that it has access to data, stored in databases. It has no "character" of any sort or form. So I cannot understand what you are asking.

[Pattern-chaser]

I have been saying that radical changes in AI are likely in the future for about ten pages. Did you notice?

I did. I've just been wondering why you are complaining about something that no-one else seems to be mentioning, or objecting-to.

[Belinda]

Pattern-chaser wrote:
"The thread is not about radical changes in AI's direction, but its intelligence and potential to be truly intelligent."

Belinda replies:
Can an AI act against all its instincts, knowledge, reason, and memories so as to commit an act entirely out of character ,purely in order to prove it can do so?

AI, current AI, has no "instincts" or "reason". It has "knowledge" and "memory" only in the sense that it has access to data, stored in databases. It has no "character" of any sort or form. So I cannot understand what you are asking.

I thought the machines could be programmed with data that approximates to instincts, reason, and memory which taken together sum up the AI machine's programmed "character" as it were. I understand that AI machines can imitate an intelligent life form so closely that it's hard to tell them apart from life intelligence. I am suggesting a test that could tell an AI intelligence apart from a living intelligence

[Sy Borg]

I have been saying that radical changes in AI are likely in the future for about ten pages. Did you notice?

I did. I've just been wondering why you are complaining about something that no-one else seems to be mentioning, or objecting-to. 🤔

You clearly have not been following the thread too closely.