Will This “Neural Lace” Brain Implant Help Us Compete with AI?
nautil.us
nautil.us
The best way to bridge the human/AGI gap in the beginning imo is with decision based integrated AR. It's not even really a bridge it's a symbiosis.
Being unmeasurable and undefined, and therefore irrelevant to measures of intelligence, "consciousness" is typically not considered part of AGI [1]. Not sure what you mean by "insight".
Science and philosophy are names for different phases of a same process for reaching understanding. Shouldn't we at this confused point in time go back to the drawing board of philoshophy before piling on hopes in search of a holy grail of superhuman intelligence? What does human intelligence even mean and how is it limited, what are the constraints applicable? How does the perceptive, probing imagination and profound insight of someone like Einstein or Tesla work? Can machine learning create a theoretical physicist? We don't know.
Even if it's based on quantum physics, it only means that we can't simply copy a brain and will have to come up with our own system.
I worked in an AI / Brain lab for some time. I see no reason it can't be done, but I don't expect it to happen for a while.
If it isn't possible to build a brain, then how do we ourselves exist? Time and research will eventually be able to do it.
Whether or not the internet is healthy is starting to become irrelevant. If you unplug, you currently can't compete in any intellectually challenging job with people who use the internet now (at least, I highly doubt you can, unless you're some kind of super-genius). The advantage of high-speed information availability is simply too great of an advantage.
The next stage will be similar to the internet. Sure there may be some disadvantages, and you can validly argue that being unplugged is more healthy. But you can't compete without it.
I don't see how responding to emails instantly makes you any more competitive. Successful people unplug all the time. Even Obama plays basketball, sleeps, hits the beach, and enjoys himself. But just like ignoring email isn't really acceptable, neither will be not using AR. You're just ensuring your future slavery to the economy—all the money in the world isn't worth much if you spend your life plugged in.
Read my other response. Bottom line is, it's there to help you make better decisions, including perhaps even not responding to email.
Nobody says you have to read email during your off-hours but if you're working in, say, IT and you're not taking advantage of google, stackoverflow, hackernews, technology subreddits, etc... well then you're well behind the eight ball.
I've seen generic knowledge workers keep up with dedicated programmers simply by virtue of how well they use the internet interface, while the guys/gals that have been coding for 20 years don't even bother to do simple google searches for basic questions about new technologies...
That's not quite right. The Net is an interface for human beings and society. We don't talk to computers on here, we talk to each other.
> The advantage of high-speed information availability is simply too great of an advantage.
That's partially right but by temporarily unplugging you can regain focus. Most of us on here are basically functional information addicts due to the length of time we've been using the Net. I think we all know there are some downsides to being continually connected and timing out is a good idea on a periodic basis.
So this is, effectively, working on solving all problems we face simultaneously, by making us better at solving problems.
[Edit: This is more in terms of the advantage of neural enhancement through intelligence augmentation. AR may or may not be the most effective way to do this, however]
I think that it's a competition with other human beings in the same sense that the nuclear arms race or mechanized warfare are artificial competitions.
You can't guarantee that other actors won't create AGI and use them to their own advantage any more than you can stop other nation states from building machine guns or nuclear weapons. The rise of AI is a competition between human beings. AGI has potential applications in a wide variety of economic, scientific and military endeavours, like many other transformative technologies. Unless you have a strategy to ban AI research globally, it's a moot point. Somebody is going to make AGI work, and whoever it is will be calling the shots because they will have the technology.
There won't be any one actor with a "singularity", it will just be a matter of a threshold unto another paradigm, and from then on it will be business as usual within the realm of zero-sum games.
The invention of books as an artificial external memory has been very helpful to us. Storing the world's knowledge into them was a kind of Utopian project in retrospect. This would be something like that but better because it wouldn't just be about storing 'raw data' but skills, the training of executive function, aptitude adjustments etc.
Of course this means really changing human beings from what they were because I expect you can't change a brain this much without altering personalities. Then again, are you the same person you were before you entered the military, the university? Probably it changed. I think that is one reason people won't like it. People find it difficult to communicate with people they cannot relate to. Without shared experience this new world if it comes would be quite an alienating and lonely one.
Is there such a thing as 'ununderstandable' or do we have the ability to understand anything with enough effort and time.
We could "control" fire before we understood thermodynamics, similarly flight and aerodynamics. So there is a threshold for making breakthroughs that don't require quark level precise predictions.
We aren't even at rubbing sticks together phase when it comes to understanding the mechanisms of intelligence.
I don't think we have to understand it well enough for AGI to interface with it because it will adapt to the inputs whether we fully understand them or not as I think we've already seen with hearing implants. We can utilize the brains extraordinary ability to find signal in noise without understanding how it does it.
tDCS on the flip side is a very unknown, poorly targeted way to get some activation but only to certain levies and nobody really knows how or if it works consistently. The research jury is split so far.
Invasive Deep brain stimulation is definitely better, however it's still solely used to create general simulation in order to prevent tremors and other maladies.
The only thing I've seen recently that gives me some excitement from an input protective was work recently done by Ramirez and Liu on implanting memory into a mouse brain. That was a single study though and was very very narrow.
I think the better (spacial/temporal) we can understand how stimulus looks like from a electromagnetic perspective for a given brain, we can make some good estimates on what the em field would look like some time t, afterwords. I've done something like this with eeg using beamforming techniques with a sufficient number of leads and comparing brain states with pre and post fmri of same tasks while providing feedback visually or auditory every 1-2 seconds (which is a really long time).
I also think this could actually get us pretty far (concerning decision making and task allocation) if we could record in environments not constrained to the lab and factor in the variables to sufficient degree that confound eeg typically by including gyroscopes/accelerometers/thermometers/drift in impedance (factoring out fluctuations in em field due to temperature/conductivity of scalp via sweat/head movements), or even environments that are pretty much stationary like gaming (also where the inputs are more observable by time-stamping screen with controller inputs to sensors on the brain).
>Invasive Deep brain stimulation is definitely better, however it's still solely used to create general simulation in order to prevent tremors and other maladies.
Saw Prof. Arnd Pralle, University at Buffalo[0], give a talk at MIT in May on his work on tetherless magnetothermal deep brain neuro-stimulation to modulate motor behavior in awake, unrestrained mice. Was pretty cool and got me thinking the same could be done with designed photonic thermal systems. I wish this field had as much money going into it as the folks in the compsci depts, esp with focusing on hardware/tooling for getting measurements vs all else going on in the neurofield.
The robot replies "Can you?"
There's a weak and a strong version of that claim. To say that humans use existing works in creating their own is easily provable. But what I don't think is easily provable is that the new work is entirely the product of existing works, with the brain contributing nothing new beyond an AI-like algorithm.
Art and music generation using tensorflow https://github.com/tensorflow/magenta.
I think the technology is already there, all we need is lots of training examples.
Measurements and stuff like deep brain stimulation maybe, but it's hard to say what the ramifications of this will be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...