I find this flippancy about the greatest mystery in the universe extremely arrogant and incurious and wish it wouldn't be so prevalent.
The current tech won't get us there just like the steam engine or the internal combustion engine didn't get us to the Moon. And getting to AGI is probably more like getting to Mars.
Comercial fusion is still decades away.
Solar and lithium batteries are getting cheaper every year but unfortunately still lots of political issues in many countries.
Wait, which theory is that? In church turing theory the computer can compute any computable function.
Why do we think that the computer can model any physical process?
Or are we suggesting that you can build a computer out of whatever physical process you want to model?
> Wait, which theory is that?
The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle. (Which isn’t a theory in the empirical sense, but somewhat more speculative.)
> Or are we suggesting that you can build a computer out of whatever physical process you want to model?
Well, you obviously can do that. Whether that computer is Turing equivalent, more limited, or potentially a hypercomputer is...well, Church-Turing-Deutsch says the last is always false, but good luck proving it.
It's not arrogant or incurious to acknowledge the flood, but it might be to deny that flood is happening.
If you think there are fundamental human qualities or capabilities that AI can't ever have, you might put in the work to articulate that, instead of projecting negativity onto people who have watched the vast majority of the human competencies landscape get completely submerged over the last 10 years. The islands we have remaining don't really suggest any unifying principle underlying things that AI is still bad at, but instead they highlight the lack of technical capabilities and various engineering tracks to solve for. Many of the problems are solved in principle, but are economically infeasible; for all intents and purposes, you might consider those islands completely submerged as well.
All this to say that describing what's happening as a 'rising tide' seems misleading to me. Techno-sociological development is super messy already, let's not make it more complex by pinning ourselves to inaccurate and potentially misleading analogies. The introduction of the car did not 'push humans higher onto a set of capability peaks', it implied a total reorganization of behavior and technologies (highways, commuting, and suburban sprawl); using the terms of your analogy humans built new landmasses on top of the water.
1. Implying that there are only "a few islands left" shoes a strong bias towards assuming that only thins humans do in the digital realm is relevant, when in fact, the vast majority of things humans do are not in the digital sphere at all.
2. It's pretty clear when most people say that machine intelligence is close, right now, they are alluding to LLM or Deep Learning based approaches. I don't think you should assume they mean machines will catch up in a 100 years. They seem to imply it will be by 2030 or sowmthing.
Robotics has passed the point of superhuman performance for any given task. Software has passed the point of superhuman performance for any given task.
Regardless of the particular technique or embodiment, the constraints aren't "is it possible in principle" but "is it too expensive" and "is this allowed by the pertinent principles and regulations and laws"
We don't have AGI that learns and adapts in real time like humans. We do have incredibly powerful algorithms that can learn from whatever data we throw at them, but many domains where it's impractical, ruinously expensive, illegal, or otherwise not possible to use AI for some other good reasons.
The few islands left to humanity are not fundamental barriers. We haven't solved intelligence, or achieved RSI or ASI or AGI yet; those were never the important thresholds.
AI has always been a question about good enough, and it looks like we've gone solidly past the good enough line into "we can probably automate everything" even if we don't solve the big problems over 5 or 10 years or beyond. I think it's very unlikely we don't solve intelligence by 2030, but even if AI stalls out where it's at right now, and all we get is the incremental improvements and engineering optimizations on current SOTA, we have enough to automate anything humans do at levels exceeding human capabilities.
What AGI and ASI do is make humans economically obsolete. Good enough AI means there might be some places where humans are needed for generalization and adaptability until the exhaustive tedious work gets done for a particular application that enables a robot or software system to be competent enough to handle the work.
Not only is intelligence probably most accurately modeled as something extremely high dimensional, it’s probably also extremely nonlinearly traversed by learning methods, both organic and artificial. Not a topology very easily “flooded”.
In other words: bull shit.
Explaining it as something like "realizable instantiation of physical computation occurring in the universe mapping to an ultra-sparse, discrete point cloud embedded in the Euclidean parameter space of all computable functions" could definitely be more precise, but you're either going to need a topology like a landscape or a bumpy sphere to visualize it, and then you're going to need to spend more time showing the effects of things like scaling laws, available compute, where the known boundaries of human intelligence lie, and so on, and so forth, and by then you've lost everyone, probably even the ML professor.
It's a good enough metaphor that maps to a real thing.
My entire point, which I’m not sure you addressed is that no, it’s not a good metaphor. Water “floods” a 3d topology in a predictable manner with regards to the volume the topology can contain. The entire argument is that progress is observable, predictable, and limitless, and the “islands” are a rhetorical device. My argument was turning the rhetorical device around and pointing out that we know so little about intelligence and AI that describing it in this way is not meaningful beyond sounding intellectual.
There's absolutely nothing mysterious about human intelligence unless you refuse to give it a clear definition. All the people waffling on about AGI refuse to give a clear, measurable definition of intelligence, because if they defined it exactly then it's possible to clearly determine whether a given machine does or does not meet that criteria. It's just 21st century woo peddling.
This begs the question[0] by assuming that it can be given a clear, measurable definition. A large part of the mystery of consciousness and intelligence is that it's hard to define, measure, or explain; the most characteristic aspects (i.e. those relating to a subjective experience) are, in principle, impossible to measure or verify[1]. To say that it's not mysterious once you give it a clear, measurable definition is basically saying "it's not mysterious once you remove all aspects that make it mysterious."