What if not only could a non-simulated brain have unseen function, but a non-simulated body may also have unseen function, and a natural dataset from the real world like we get and not human made or limited has unseen function?
Without doing that, we still have made impressive AI like GPT-3, IGPT, JUKEBOX. But could we get more sauce from trying it. Of course we already know we want to give it real data streams, and a real body, it is part of the plan. Of course it feels expensive to do so until the end. But our AI is stuck on a sim for the most part ya. My conclusion is a real brain/ body/ data stream is not worth it, as it's expensive even IF it has some ability to more quickly shed light on how to make real combustion in an engine happen. Our learning to walk AIs do pretty good in sims, even if not perfectly simulating friction etc. If our goal was to make a computer-simulated combustion engine, yes it may not work, but we can get it to, just it may take a tad longer since we are creating the PHYSICS and the MACHINE, and not just the machine in a already given PHYSICS only. *? . .* I really am far in AGI, I see no need to experiment so radically to see if real axons etc do something naturally useful for pattern finding ex. retain or pool energy in nodes to act like a short term pool, without us bringing it to do it by code. I already have that all figured out. I do better by asking myself how or why would i want it? For example, if i want to eat all day, do i really want that? Some may argue, ya, it good, but then we are all big n fat and die young. Even though people may think its obvious and say "don't eat so much, its just wrong, i don't know why, though, just don't", asking yourself what the actual reason is actually explains why it is not so great. Now the ?, hmm, when we think about how AGI works, we have the machine & physics both in mind, no? And if you don't have the physics in mind, you wouldn't see it anyway. And if the brain has its own level of operation not dependent on the atomic physics, does it matter then to think about the physics underneath? We create simple physics sims without atoms. They are rather pretty close in many ways, despite lacking a massive amount of the atoms in a real scenario. So, I think, the AGI function is all that matters, it is the physics/ machine. There may be a physics ni real life we don't have but the brain is a rebellion to that physics, it acts differently, it may send a signal/particle to location B only if sees X, or may decide some nodes get thicker connections, none of this is particle physics, it's a higher level, like that crappy 3D physics sim in Blender that works but has 0 atoms. So I think our AGI is the machine, but the physics is not needed, only the level of the machine physics. And I don't think making a real brain-chip will show us much insights how to do it, seems like a slow unintelligence-backed search. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2f2a092379e757d2-M11945fabe550c160cbede5bf Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
