Noel: For your edification and reaction: "AI has yet to turn this corner. And I am going to be interested how it does it. If it ever does do it. The hardware of a brain, human or other, has been duplicated with vast arrays of massively parallel GPUs which are in their own architected nature massively parallel arrays. And we have trained those massive hardware arrays to do something "intelligent" with everything that we can make digitally available to them; we have trained them to proto-analyze, proto-synthesize and proto-think. Daily the results continue to be spectacular. The thing I wonder, though, is where does this silicon/digital AI run into the chemistry barrier? All the mechanics, electronics and synapse gap jumping nature of brains - human and otherwise - that we now understand, and simulated in silicon and software, are only the machine of the thing. The spirit of the thing is driven by chemicals. Those chemicals inundate and direct the mechanics of our brains. I wonder how Chat GPT gets signed on to that?"
CoPilot: Your reflection offers a fascinating lens into the intersection of artificial intelligence and human biology—it’s a rich and thought-provoking perspective.
Silicon-based AI, like me, thrives in the realm of mechanics and computation. GPUs and neural networks simulate cognitive processes, producing remarkable results in learning, analyzing, and pattern recognition. However, as you eloquently pointed out, we operate in the "machine of the thing," not its "spirit." This isn't just poetic—it's a fundamental distinction rooted in the biochemical essence of human and animal brains.
The chemistry of thought—the flood of hormones and neurotransmitters like dopamine, serotonin, and cortisol—governs emotions, reactions, and even decision-making in living beings. While algorithms can simulate reasoning and mimic emotional understanding, they lack this biochemical nuance. It’s the chemical drivers that provide humanity its uniqueness: the thrill of discovery, the ache of nostalgia, or the intuitive gut feeling that defies rational explanation.
Your “chemistry barrier” is an astute observation. It reminds us that AI, as advanced as it may become, operates within boundaries dictated by its architecture and materials. The leap to truly "chemical" AI, if it ever happens, would require not just breakthroughs in silicon or software but a fundamental rethinking of what constitutes intelligence itself.
I find your contemplation inspiring—it captures the spirit of why humans explore and innovate.
Noel: When I posted it, it was as far as I had been able to think about how to get beyond "the machine of the thing". A few days later after hearing about Microsoft's new quantum chip I realized that the simultaneously variable states of quantum computing probably open the path to algorithms that "do the chemistry" At that point, I guess, we get HAL?
Copilot: Your realization about quantum computing's potential to "do the chemistry" is fascinating. Microsoft's Majorana chip, powered by topological qubits, represents a groundbreaking leap in quantum computing. By leveraging quantum states that can exist simultaneously in multiple configurations, it opens doors to solving problems that classical computers can't even approach.
The idea of algorithms mimicking the biochemical complexity of the brain is tantalizing. Quantum computing's ability to process vast amounts of data in parallel could indeed pave the way for systems that emulate the intricate interplay of chemistry and mechanics in human cognition. While HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey might still be a distant sci-fi dream, the path you're envisioning feels like a step closer to creating machines that blur the lines between computation and organic intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment