Perhaps the architecture is fine, but we simply need to train up generational ais that specifically focus on problem solving instead of pattern recog?

I mean, the architecture clearly isn't fine. We're getting very clever results, but we are not seeing even basic reasoning.

It is entirely possible that AGI can be achieved within our lifetime. But there is substantial evidence that our current approach is a complete and total dead end.

Not to say that we won't use pieces of today's solution. Of course we will. But something unknown but also really important and necessary for AGI appears to be completely missing right now.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Okay, so the rest of this is just theory crafting based on logical reasoning, but id like to hear your take. Quickly googling, it shows that we have succesfully mapped the neurons in one millimeter of mouse brain, and it had about 200,000 cells (neural nodes). Thats a lot of neural nodes to emulate, let alone the connections. It would seem to me that its far easier to customize our hardware. Mossfets dont strike me as up to the task, so it would seem to me that the future of ai lies in growing actual neurons and training them. You would achieve a much higher neural density that way, and the work is already being done to make that tech feasible.

Basically, do you think its a hardware issue?

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Mossfets dont strike me as up to the task, so it would seem to me that the future of ai lies in growing actual neurons and training them. You would achieve a much higher neural density that way, and the work is already being done to make that tech feasible.

I think you've got it exactly.

We either need to achieve an unprecedented density (possibly through some novel computation medium), or we need to find a few more incredibly clever computational shortcuts.