# [ExI] fun outsider's view on ai

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Tue May 10 01:07:54 UTC 2016

```No flak, you might be right.  We might find an alternative path to AI.  I
will note however that I took Thune’s class online, the one Stanford
offered free a couple years ago.  I noticed the text hasn’t changed all
that much in the last 20 years.  The insights offered in the mainstream
courses is really not progressing all that much, which tells me we need to
try something else.
spike

OK, now I am getting somewhere.  At the start I assume you define just what
it is that you want it to do.  What the whole process seems to me to be is
to create a machine that can duplicate a human, only it is faster, not
different in quality in any way. (Is this correct?)  And that's because we
can't think of any way to think other than human because we are human and
limited by that.

So we don't need outside the box thinking - we need outside the human
thinking.  Right so far?

Think of all those variables in my post.  Suppose you could hold every one
of them constant except one, so as to do a real experiment.  Then you
repeat that with the other variables, adding one at a time to see the
statistical interactions.  This is just totally impossible.  To get two
people to be in the same state except for one variable..... can't be done.
One reason psychology is so hard to do properly.  So we use groups.

Even if you could do all of that, suppose that the brain works in more of a
Gestalt fashion, so that the output is not the sum of all the variables at
all, but something different.  Some variables may be ignored, some
suppressed by other variables, some kicked up, and so on.  And some outputs
may be the same even with different quantities of some of the variables.

And just what will be the corresponding variable in an AI to the influence
of hormones?  It's just so complex that I can't get my head around it.
Maybe I have a lot of company.

I think we will never ever in a billion years be able to accurately predict
much of the behavior of an individual except in a very general way -
groups, yes, we can do that now.

bill w

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 6:12 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace
>
>
>
> >…If you want an AI to be superintelligent, why reference the neuron,
> Spike?  Human brains are so fallible it's just silly…
>
>
>
> We don’t know a better way to true AI than by studying and emulating
> actual I.
>
>
>
> In any dynamic system being modeled by computer, you need super-detailed
> models of the subsystems if you want a good high-fidelity simulation.  For
> instance, if you want a jet aircraft sim good enough to train pilots, you
> will likely need to have structural characteristics of all the parts, since
> high-performance jets flex under load, things act in unexpected ways when
> you push to the limits etc.  You need to model things like the moment of
> inertia of the elevators, rudder, ailerons and so forth.  There are no
> shortcuts, if your sim precision is critical, as it is in some cases.
>
>
>
> If we want to get AI, we have one really good example of I.  We have one
> good example of what we need, one example of a machine which can generate
> software.  To create a sim which can write software, we simulate the one
> example we have of that.  To do that, we sim every subsystem, every single
> one, all the way down.  Then we run it as a background process on a bunch
> of interconnected computers.  We might find we can simulate a second of
> human-like thought per hour.
>
>
>
> This approach requires that we understand how dendrites and glials and
> synapses and all the rest of it works.  Currently we don’t.  Certainly not
> entirely.
>
>
>
>
>
> >…All told, we are many decades away from a good grasp of the brain,
> maybe 100 years.  A super smart AI will likely not function at all like a
> human brain.  No reason it should.  (boy am I going to get flak on this one) bill
> w
>
>
>
> No flak, you might be right.  We might find an alternative path to AI.  I
> will note however that I took Thune’s class online, the one Stanford
> offered free a couple years ago.  I noticed the text hasn’t changed all
> that much in the last 20 years.  The insights offered in the mainstream
> courses is really not progressing all that much, which tells me we need to
> try something else.
>
>
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/1f5f241a/attachment.html>
```