zlacker

>>mdszy+(OP)
Why is there never any fundamental research whether human intelligence is even computable? All these huge, expensive projects based on an untested premise.

>>yters+GI
There has been some philosophical speculating but that's generally not very actionable, with people clinging to either side of the question. On the practical side, it's the sort of thing which you can't just throw money at and make progress. Ok, you have $100mil to research whether human intelligence is computable. What do you do? Hire lots of humans and assign them noncomputable tasks and tap your foot waiting for one of them to turn out to be the next Oracle of Delphi? That's fantastic if one of them does, but if none of them do, then you've made zero progress: there's no way to know whether you failed because human intelligence is computable, or whether you failed because you chose the wrong tasks/humans.

>>xamuel+JM
But that's the sort of thing that should be researched: is the question scientifically answerable? The answer is not obviously no. I can think of ways to scientifically test for noncomputability. If I can then certainly much smarter and knowledgeable poeple can. People just assume like yourself it is not and throw lots of money at a certain assumption. If the assumption is wrong, not only is AGI a dead end, but "human in the loop" computation should be a huge win.