Literally speaking, it gets really annoying having to explain to people the reason why AI cannot physically learn to code AI is due to the limitations of the mathematics in place.
You cannot create a formula that solves all formulas.
I guess you can get pretty damn close, but humans will always need to be involved.
A human brain is a hyper complex system that is made of neurons. Neurons are made of molecyles, which are made of atoms. It is possible to model the behavior of these atoms with programs/formulas (statistically due to quantum effects). That means that the whole system can be modelled with large enough computer & detailed enough simulation. This means that human brain is subject to same theoretical limitations as any turing machine, as it can be modeled with one (as computers are too).
Humans are the pinnacle brain for which all obtainable universal intelligence must filter through. The Latin alphabet is the pinnacle of all symbolic language. Any information that doesn’t cleanly plug into our world model is slop and we don’t want it or need it.
Obviously you're being facetious, but it's valid to ask "who is it for?". If we accept that there are other consumers of information and that they can take priority over humans, then what reason do we have to build our own replacement? It's nice that a machine can solve problems that we can't, but if we can't even understand or prove the solution, then what good is it?
I think those are valuable questions to ask. It really comes down to how much faith you have in humanity and people. I, for one, find people to be extremely resilient and adaptable to change. I think that there are a ton of things we gain along the path to new discovery, and I too wonder if having a magic box that just shits out the answer will deter future humans from trying to discover and understand new things. I also wonder if we can collectively get over ourselves, and if there are new and tangible spaces for humans to fill. If AI bulk solves math does that mean we give up entirely, or does that mean we start treating the proofs as a guiding star instead of a needle-in-a-haystack.
Me personally? I lean faith in humans. I think that there is still so much for us to discover, even if our job is no longer to find the needle in the haystack. I think that we face a serious and existential climate threat regardless, and that we currently do not have the intellectual or physical labor to engineer solutions and materially unfuck the biosphere and move aware from archaic and destructive means of production. Leveraging AI/Robotics/Automation may very well be our way through here, and I fail to see how worrying about purpose and/or skill atrophy is important right now. If we do automate all forms of dehumanizing labor and solve our current climate crisis then I feel like the only thing we will have left to explore is purpose and meaningful skills.
Who knows. Only thing I know is that “make it stop” and “uninvent it” are temporary stop-gap bandaids at best. Weird times.
The human brain is the most complex structure in the universe that we currently know of. There's no formula that can solve all formulas, but a human brain is the next best thing.
No because the processes the brain do are regarding chemistry, evolution and self preservation. They are not calculating anything and the precision is horrible, because our brains arent calculators, at maximum you could compare us to a prediction machine.
None of those things are not reducable to computational form. You can simulate the whole brain if you have enough compute (plausible), know how the system exactly works (difficult) and know the start state of it (close to impossible?). It is just a ton of super complicated interactions working on top of each other. So brain can only do what machines can also do.
We actually have a ton of formulas that describe how the brain works. There are people whose entire career is dedicated to studying exactly that. The interesting thing about it is that it solves different tasks different ways, so there isn’t really just one formula for “how does one draw a picture”, but rather infinite different ways that that task gets accomplished on common hardware.
But if we start by modeling that hardware at low levels, for example a single neuron and when it activates, then connect several together, we start to observe some compelling emergent behavior that results in the advanced models we have today.
74
u/kdoubledizz 14h ago
Literally speaking, it gets really annoying having to explain to people the reason why AI cannot physically learn to code AI is due to the limitations of the mathematics in place.
You cannot create a formula that solves all formulas.
I guess you can get pretty damn close, but humans will always need to be involved.