[ta8645]

> you're building intelligence without understanding why it works.

But if we do a good enough job of that, it should then be able to explain to us why it works (after it does some research/science on itself). Yes?

[samrus]

Bit fantastical. We are a general intelligence and we dont understand ourselves

[ta8645]

Indeed. But the premise of the objection, was that it is understandable, and a shame that we're not putting such understanding before implementing these systems.

If you're right, and it's essentially impossible to understand (and we still want to advance these technologies) we will have to do so in some degree of ignorance anyway.

[layer8]

It doesn’t have to be impossible to understand for (hypothetical) AGI having as much difficulty in understanding it as we do.

[ta8645]

I must not be communicating very well, because everyone is arguing with me about points i'm not trying to make. Sorry for that.