All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Tuesday, May 16, 2023
Godfather Of AI QUITS Google, Says THE END IS NIGH
Roger Penrose, mentor to Stephen Hawking, believes that AI will never be able to equal the human brain because it will never be able to intuitively arrive at an algorithm, and humans can/do/have.
I agree.
Thus, AI is not the problem. The problem is certain people and what those people put AI 'in charge of'.
Interesting. I've heard Penrose speak, and I have read stuff by him and about him.
I've never heard that algorithm argument.
I have heard him speak about how he believes that the human bran works on a quantum level through microtubules, and that is can do non-computational work (maybe this is the algorithm you are speaking of).
Here:
Penrose believes that humans can do something no classical computer can do, i.e. compute non-computable functions. In other words, he thinks we can solve problems no Turing machine can solve. This implies no standard computer can solve them, and not even quantum computers can solve them. The advantage of quantum computers is that they can solve some problems faster, but in principle they too can be simulated on Turing machines.
One has to admire the fact that he realizes, and goes along with, the full implications of this view.
If we believe standard neuroscience, human thoughts are encoded in the strength of interactions between neurons, which act as summing and thresholding devices. In other words, our brains are a kind of deep-learning neural network. Neural networks however obviously can be simulated by classical computers. So if we believe Penrose’s arguments, this implies that neuroscience is completely wrong about this.
He understands this very well, and thus, together with Stuart Hameroff, has developed an alternative hypothesis of how human thinking works. It has to do with supposed quantum entanglements between microtubules in our brain cells.
But that’s not enough: even quantum physics can be simulated on classical computers. Thus Penrose goes further, and posits a whole new physical hypothesis, Orchestrated Objective Reduction, that adds a non-computational component to quantum physics that somehow our thoughts must be tapping into.
In the first 25 minutes of the talk he discusses evidence that how human brains supposedly exhibit non-computational elements that cannot be simulated by computers.
2 comments:
Roger Penrose, mentor to Stephen Hawking, believes that AI will never be able to equal the human brain because it will never be able to intuitively arrive at an algorithm, and humans can/do/have.
I agree.
Thus, AI is not the problem. The problem is certain people and what those people put AI 'in charge of'.
Interesting. I've heard Penrose speak, and I have read stuff by him and about him.
I've never heard that algorithm argument.
I have heard him speak about how he believes that the human bran works on a quantum level through microtubules, and that is can do non-computational work (maybe this is the algorithm you are speaking of).
Here:
Penrose believes that humans can do something no classical computer can do, i.e. compute non-computable functions. In other words, he thinks we can solve problems no Turing machine can solve. This implies no standard computer can solve them, and not even quantum computers can solve them. The advantage of quantum computers is that they can solve some problems faster, but in principle they too can be simulated on Turing machines.
One has to admire the fact that he realizes, and goes along with, the full implications of this view.
If we believe standard neuroscience, human thoughts are encoded in the strength of interactions between neurons, which act as summing and thresholding devices. In other words, our brains are a kind of deep-learning neural network. Neural networks however obviously can be simulated by classical computers. So if we believe Penrose’s arguments, this implies that neuroscience is completely wrong about this.
He understands this very well, and thus, together with Stuart Hameroff, has developed an alternative hypothesis of how human thinking works. It has to do with supposed quantum entanglements between microtubules in our brain cells.
But that’s not enough: even quantum physics can be simulated on classical computers. Thus Penrose goes further, and posits a whole new physical hypothesis, Orchestrated Objective Reduction, that adds a non-computational component to quantum physics that somehow our thoughts must be tapping into.
In the first 25 minutes of the talk he discusses evidence that how human brains supposedly exhibit non-computational elements that cannot be simulated by computers.
Post a Comment