Re:Deep image prior 'learns' on just one image
by mjburgess on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @04:23PM
(#15865145)
> Do you think we'll never know enough about physics to simulate a small box with a person in it?
In the sense you mean simulation, ie., describe with all required detail some system -- we can barely simulate a few atoms let alone a room with a human being in it.
Im not sure this is even a question of knowing the physics. The problem is that even an atom has an infinite density of "descriptive information"... ie., in order to describe in toto we would be calculating forever.
This is not what any one in AI is even trying to do by the way. This isnt machine learning. This isn't AI.
I'm not convinced simulation in this depth will ever be achieved, I cannot imagine it could ever be performant. Every single causal interaction taking place over a second is an entire universe in itself. To have this second alone described in simulation is a vast undertaking, let alone a conversation.
Maybe I would agree that while this system would be "good enough", if it could predict an appropriate response by simulating a target human being to this depth... all the way down to how dopamine bonds to receptors in the frontal lobe, etc. -- then sure, I could see that it would be close enough.
However this isnt what anyone means when we say something is "simulated". They mean that it a single aspect alone is idealised into a single equation and treated under perfect conditions without any other factor being relevant, and then a calculation involving this equation is run.
People in AI are not even considering animal consciousness as being a relevant thing to simulate (even though that's what consciousness is). They think it is just a matter of some idealized formal structure.
If they realised that it would require an electronic system to calculate every descriptive quantity regarding every particle of some animal, computational general-AI research projects would be binned for the next millennia at least.
In the case of AI, no one is trying to "simulate a human being" in the sense you describe. They are trying to find an extremely simplified highly idealized equation to describe thinking.
They are trying to model intelligence as if the salient features of animal consciousness were not biological but equational. "Good Bye" follows "Hello" because insert program...
No, "Good Bye" follows "Hello" because people who speak english have lived a life of speaking it in which experiences have been acquired in response to the world ie., their brains have developed under sociolinguistic conditions: with light and sound bouncing off their bodies and the bodies of those around them such that their neurological structure as evolved to causally associate "hello" with akind of social circumstane and "goodbye" with likewise.
There is nothing apart from this connected social-neurological system that constitutes why "goodbye" follows "hello". That is how it comes to be. Any rule or system which appeals to an equation that isn't modelling this entire process to its full depth is just "accidentally correlated" with english-- and will be trivially easy to expose.
In the sense you mean simulation, ie., describe with all required detail some system -- we can barely simulate a few atoms let alone a room with a human being in it.
Im not sure this is even a question of knowing the physics. The problem is that even an atom has an infinite density of "descriptive information"... ie., in order to describe in toto we would be calculating forever.
This is not what any one in AI is even trying to do by the way. This isnt machine learning. This isn't AI.
I'm not convinced simulation in this depth will ever be achieved, I cannot imagine it could ever be performant. Every single causal interaction taking place over a second is an entire universe in itself. To have this second alone described in simulation is a vast undertaking, let alone a conversation.
Maybe I would agree that while this system would be "good enough", if it could predict an appropriate response by simulating a target human being to this depth... all the way down to how dopamine bonds to receptors in the frontal lobe, etc. -- then sure, I could see that it would be close enough.
However this isnt what anyone means when we say something is "simulated". They mean that it a single aspect alone is idealised into a single equation and treated under perfect conditions without any other factor being relevant, and then a calculation involving this equation is run.
People in AI are not even considering animal consciousness as being a relevant thing to simulate (even though that's what consciousness is). They think it is just a matter of some idealized formal structure.
If they realised that it would require an electronic system to calculate every descriptive quantity regarding every particle of some animal, computational general-AI research projects would be binned for the next millennia at least.
In the case of AI, no one is trying to "simulate a human being" in the sense you describe. They are trying to find an extremely simplified highly idealized equation to describe thinking.
They are trying to model intelligence as if the salient features of animal consciousness were not biological but equational. "Good Bye" follows "Hello" because insert program...
No, "Good Bye" follows "Hello" because people who speak english have lived a life of speaking it in which experiences have been acquired in response to the world ie., their brains have developed under sociolinguistic conditions: with light and sound bouncing off their bodies and the bodies of those around them such that their neurological structure as evolved to causally associate "hello" with akind of social circumstane and "goodbye" with likewise.
There is nothing apart from this connected social-neurological system that constitutes why "goodbye" follows "hello". That is how it comes to be. Any rule or system which appeals to an equation that isn't modelling this entire process to its full depth is just "accidentally correlated" with english-- and will be trivially easy to expose.
And so on for every aspect of consciousness.