Hacker News Reader

Comment by bubblyworld | Hacker News Reader

If you really want to phrase it that way, organisms like us are "just" distributions of genes that have been pushed this way and that by natural selection until they converged to something we consider intelligent (humans).

It's pretty clear that these optimisation processes lead to emergent behaviour, both in ML and in the natural sciences. Computability theory isn't really relevant here.

View on HN

I don't even know where to begin to address your confusion. Without computability theory there are no computers, no operating systems, no networks, no compilers, and no high level frameworks for "AI".

Well, if you want to address my "confusion" then pick something and start there =)

That is patently false - most of those things are firmly in the realm of engineering, especially these days. Mathematics is good for grounding intuition though. But why is this relevant to the OP?

There is no reason to do any of that because according to your own logic AI can do all of it. You really should sit down and ponder what exactly you get out of equating Turing machines with human intelligence.

Sorry, I edited my reply because I decided going down that rabbit hole wasn't worth it. Didn't expect you to reply immediately.

I'm not equating anything here, just pointing out that the fact that AI runs in software isn't a knockdown argument against anything. And computability theory certainly has nothing useful to say in that regard.

Right.

Well, you know, elaborate and we can have a productive discussion. The way you keep appealing to computability theory as a black box makes me think you haven't actually studied that much of it.

Not much to discuss.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com