You’re vastly oversimplifying humans.
That’s like saying a physics simulation is basically an entire sub universe on your computer.
It sounds true, but it’s just not. It’s a gross oversimplification
I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI.
No matter how much data we give it, no matter how big it is, it’ll never be “human intelligent” since it’s impossible for us to describe a loss function for being human or describe being human in a dataset.
We’ll never be able to evaluate it, since we can’t fully describe what it means to communicate because to do that we’d need to communicate it and that process can’t be fully self describing.
Not to say AI isn’t useful or impressive, but it’ll never be comparable to humans, truly.
That’s like saying a physics simulation is basically an entire sub universe on your computer.
It sounds true, but it’s just not. It’s a gross oversimplification
I think Gödel had a proof for how it’s impossible to fully describe a system from within that system. That’s the nail in the coffin for AGI.
No matter how much data we give it, no matter how big it is, it’ll never be “human intelligent” since it’s impossible for us to describe a loss function for being human or describe being human in a dataset.
We’ll never be able to evaluate it, since we can’t fully describe what it means to communicate because to do that we’d need to communicate it and that process can’t be fully self describing.
Not to say AI isn’t useful or impressive, but it’ll never be comparable to humans, truly.