Comment by jablongo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jablongo | Hacker News Reader

Given the epic title I was pretty unimpressed by this line of thinking. The argument seems to rely on (among other things) certain presumed implications of “Computers not inhabiting the world” - a comical line of reasoning that cites a lack of a childhood among other absurd reasons for why computers can’t be intelligent. The author assumes that intelligence can only be derived from experiencing the world in full... which seems to imply that paraplegics are inhibited from intelligent thought. Taking that further - are we not capable of intelligent thought during dreams? Fjelland goes on to argue that with no way to fully interact with the world computers are barred from intelligence. Firstly there’s no reason for us to believe that computers will stop broadening the methods by which they connect to, measure, and actuate the world around them. Secondly it seems plausible that a person locked in a room with a radio to communicate with the outside world would eventually acquire intelligence without ever fully experiencing the world.

“Secondly it seems plausible that a person locked in a room with a radio to communicate with the outside world would eventually acquire intelligence without ever fully experiencing the world.”

Strongly disagree. If that was all he experienced in his life, the brain would not host a mind we would recognize as a healthy human.

A human is not a computer. A human life is not decomposable to purely language. This is not a ‘spiritual’ statement, it’s merely an observation that the mind takes in input and processes it far beyond in ways which we are able to describe in terms of language. Any modern terminology, at least. The mind needs experiences.

On lack of human contact: they’ve tried this in orphanages. Babies that don’t get human attention generally wither and die.

Are simulated experiences not experiences? What if they are indistinguishable from the real thing? Also see my response below - the claim is not that this guy locked in a room will surely be well adjusted and normal, just that it’s possible (though maybe not probable) for him to acquire intelligence.

> Secondly it seems plausible that a person locked in a room with a radio to communicate with the outside world would eventually acquire intelligence without ever fully experiencing the world.

I'm not sure about that. A person locked in a room with a radio would probably go crazy or recess into some primitive mental state. Also, the article specifically claims that General Intelligence has this requirement of embodiment, not just intelligence as you imply.

However I agree with your first conclusion that AI will eventually include bodies and it won't take long to integrate software intelligence and embodied intelligence to get something greater that could resemble AGI.

Even if I agree that he would “probably” go crazy, I just need more than 0 of my millions of AGI candidates to successfully navigate the perils of their relative sensory deprivation in order to have achieved AGI.

> that AI will eventually include bodies and it won't take long to integrate software intelligence and embodied intelligence to get something greater that could resemble AGI.

Probably but there will be at least two really difficult challenges:

- the hardware part (building the actual body) is far from easy, and still out of reach as of today.

- the “intelligence” needed to control a “body” is super super hard too. Having children gives you some insight on the relative difficulty of problems. Facial/object recognition is learned in months, body control requires years to learn. And we're talking about fundamental problems for living animals, so you'd guess it's been pretty well optimized by natural selection.

>A person locked in a room with a radio would probably go crazy or recess into some primitive mental state.

Hellen Keller managed to do well without vision or hearing.

This is an interesting remark, but she still had touching and was also able to perceive vibrations. She was therefore able to _interact_ with other people. More importantly other people were willing to interact with her. Also I believe the fact she was not born deaf and blind but was able to experience the world normally at least for the first 19 months of her life is of extreme importance.

It is moving goal post; "Turing test", "The real Touring test", "the super real real Turing test"..... At end there will be a test for presence of "soul" :)

Number of false negatives must be sky-high :)

> Secondly it seems plausible that a person locked in a room with a radio to communicate with the outside world would eventually acquire intelligence without ever fully experiencing the world.

Without fully experiencing the outside world, such an agent will still have gaps in intelligence. Knowing the specific wavelength of the color red (564–580 nm), and how the optic nerve processes color is different than the experience of seeing a red flower in the world for the first time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com