What is the strongest argument for impossibility being a possibility?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Mind
NB I didn't find this argument particularly strong, but it's a long time since I read it. The brain would have to be doing something spectacularly strange for it to be impossible for us to emulate in one way or another.
More generally, I don't think invoking quantum effects is an especially strong argument for impossibility in the general case. We already use quantum effects to some extent and make progress on quantum computation. It may be evidence of greater difficulty, but not of impossibility. Unless there is a strong case for some particular quantum effect being unharness-able.
Not that quantum mechanisms in brains are likely, so probably not an issue.
The issue is that we do not have proof that general AI is possible. We conjecture that it is based on the assumption that our brains could be simulated by enough artificial neurons, (or some other method) but we don't know that for a fact.
And so far we can't even fully simulate a mouse brain, let alone a human brain. We can make something that imitates aspects of mouse behavior, but we can't actually simulate a mouse brain.
All the hype around General AI being "just over the horizon" right now is just like it was back in the 80s (or the 60s.) It's a bit over the top. If you look at it from a critical perspective there isn't a lot of solid reason to be so bullish.
It's a very long way off.
Based on everything else we know about the world now, we can "just" simulate a brain. "Just" may mean "after another 200 years of work", of course. The alternative is "the brain is magical somehow", which is not a strong argument on its own – we don't often end up finding magic to be the answer.
Where do you see hype about General AI being just over the horizon? Most popular discussion I read is about two things: a) the replacement of human work by increasingly-improved specific AI; b) the possibility of rapid advancement of general AI once invented. I haven't seen anyone say b) is imminent – only that it is likely to be fast/dangerous when it happens.
Right, we think we can. But we don't know. I would argue that as we get closer to doing it, it will become a fact that we can (or we will find that we can't.) The fact that we still don't know for sure that we can (or cannot) is an indicator or a symptom of how far away we are from actually doing it.
Is the argument that we're still just hitting the low-hanging fruit of the technological age, so have false confidence in all the things we've equalled or beaten?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that most of the hardest things may not be logically possible (c.f. incompleteness theorem) or may not be physically possible (c.f. time travel). Having such clear physical possibility (and at multiple levels of complexity/advancement that only arose through selection and mutation) seems like strong evidence we will be able to do it eventually. A claim of impossibility is not illogical, but requires a stronger argument than "there's always a small chance".
In order to accurately simulate a particular brain, we'd need the technology to (i) accurately read all the information encoded in a particular brain, which everything we know about the brain suggests depends on getting a snapshot of the state of 85 billion neurons - and chemical interactions of those neurons' constituent proteins - at a particular millisecond in time. (ii) manipulate matter (or write matter-simulating code) such that we duplicate the state of that brain at that time, and probably the associated body too, with sufficient accuracy for the biochemical reactions (or digital emulation of the biochemical reactions) continue to produce a patterns resembles the thought processes of the emulated brain in their outputs.
I don't think we need to invoke "magic" or vitalism or quantum brains to suggest that replicators capable of reproducing a particular state of a mind-bogglingly complex set of biochemical processes without significant information loss may not be a practical possibility in future. If anything, that sounds harder than achieving AGI or something approaching it via other means.
As for the hype about general AI, we're responding to a thread musing on whether we'll get "close" to achieving it this year.
If "all the hype" is a single HN question (not even an assertion) this counts as "over the top", then what would be an appropriate amount of discussion other than none at all?
Someone who probably isn't wholly uninformed asking if we're getting close to AGI this year is obviously a symptom rather than the cause of the hype. I mean, if we're working on Ray Kurzweil's Singularity is Near timescale, I'll be able to buy computational power equivalent to the human brain for $999 in three years' time. Still, Peter Diamindis did update that a couple of years ago by pushing that deadline out to 2025, so I guess at least I'll still be smarter than my next bottom-spec Macbook Air.
[1]C elegans is pretty trivial
It's not, though. It comes up over and over here, and often it's a link to an external article rather than an "Ask HN".
I also wish all of the sugar beverage hype would stop (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=coca%20cola&sort=byPopularity&...).
I don't really buy that argument (even though it's mine, I've not seen anyone else argue this). We design systems so complex and built from learning algorithms and neural nets such that ultimately we don't actually know precisely how they are doing what they do. We could brute force it by evolving a solution maybe. But it's at least plausible that we won't be able to engineer and design an AI architecturally because we're not up to the task.