|
|
|
|
|
|
by geophile
1190 days ago
|
|
|
> Surely these scientists ... aren't so stupid as to think emergent behavior potentially resembling intelligence could result from such simple systems? It's just statistics after all. Why is that a stupid thought? What is so preposterous about "just statistics" -- with billions of nodes, and extensively trained, producing intelligent behavior? The implicit assumption is that human brains are doing something else, or in addition. I think that what's wrong with this view -- that there is a difference between AGI and human intelligence -- is that it conflates what your brain is doing, with what you think your brain is doing. Brains and neural nets have been trained to recognize spoken words. I'm not even talking about understanding, just producing the text corresponding to speech. We know how neural nets do this translation. Do we understand how brains do it? (I don't know, but I don't think so.) Can you explain what your brain is doing when you do speech-to-text? I doubt it. Chess: An Alpha Zero style AI (neural net trained by playing itself) is a very good player. How do you play chess? You can probably explain how you make a move more successfully than you can explain how you translate speech to text. But how correct is your explanation? An explanation may well be your conscious mind inventing an explanation for what your unconscious mind has done. In other words: When people compare AI to human intelligence, I think they are often comparing to intelligence plus consciousness, not even realizing the error. |
|
|
Suppose you have N variables x_1, ..., x_10 and you want to predict y_1, ..., y_10. You know that each y_i depend on each x_i in a complex, non-linear way.
How many samples would you need to to make sense of distribution? How does number of samples grow with N?