DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**sandyphoebetvmaa** · 09-01-2012, 04:34 PM

Obviously I am of the view that the difference between AI and intelligence of organisms is simply a matter of scale, complexity and decision making hierarchy and prioritization based on fundamental survival principles. I do feel however that we could draw on the evolution of biological organisms from simple to complex as a guide for AI.

I wonder if it might be more of a diversion. You could end up with a system which is stuffed full of algorithms which produce intelligent behaviours without having any real intelligence in it at all, and you may then have to undo most of it to make further progress. Humans are rather slow at getting up to speed with the world around them when they're born, and I suspect that's because we've been evolving our way away from instinctive behaviours and replacing that with a proper general intelligence which can be used to generate its own algorithms to do the same kinds of things on autopilot (all the skillful things we can do without having to think about it - these are very like instincts, but fully user-programmable). We actually think things out, whereas intelligent behaviours simply evolve through luck by enhancing survival. The quick route to human-level AI is going to be to create a gereral intelligence directly and then to let it work out how to all the instinct-like stuff (for moving robots around) for itself. Vision and hearing will be a bit harder to add, so there's still going to be some distance to go after that before we have the full package.

09-01-2012, 04:34 PM	#17
sandyphoebetvmaa Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 599 Senior Member	Obviously I am of the view that the difference between AI and intelligence of organisms is simply a matter of scale, complexity and decision making hierarchy and prioritization based on fundamental survival principles. I do feel however that we could draw on the evolution of biological organisms from simple to complex as a guide for AI. I wonder if it might be more of a diversion. You could end up with a system which is stuffed full of algorithms which produce intelligent behaviours without having any real intelligence in it at all, and you may then have to undo most of it to make further progress. Humans are rather slow at getting up to speed with the world around them when they're born, and I suspect that's because we've been evolving our way away from instinctive behaviours and replacing that with a proper general intelligence which can be used to generate its own algorithms to do the same kinds of things on autopilot (all the skillful things we can do without having to think about it - these are very like instincts, but fully user-programmable). We actually think things out, whereas intelligent behaviours simply evolve through luck by enhancing survival. The quick route to human-level AI is going to be to create a gereral intelligence directly and then to let it work out how to all the instinct-like stuff (for moving robots around) for itself. Vision and hearing will be a bit harder to add, so there's still going to be some distance to go after that before we have the full package.
	Quote