Answers.Body: <blockquote>
  <p>On the other hand, the human mind is Turing complete.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>This is a common confusion about what &quot;Turing completeness&quot; entails. The human brain is not Turing complete, as it is not infinite and doesn't operate on well defined rules (that we have totally cataloged). It <em>might</em> be equal to a linear bounded automaton. Turing completeness applies to rule sets, not the machines that run them. It's commonly applied to languages. Less technically, some people will say &quot;Turing complete&quot; to mean that it can do arbitrary or human-like computation, but this is not the true definition <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness" rel="nofollow noreferrer">link</a>.</p>
  <p>To your question:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>Why would we expect any of these AI paradigms to give us human level intelligence (AGI) if the former is not Turing complete while the latter is?</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Assuming you're using the lay definition of Turing completeness, current AI algorithms are nowhere near close to what the human brain can do, and everyone in AI that I know understands that radical, as of yet unknown, advances in order to truly approximate the human mind.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-18T19:08:53.007Z
Answers.Text: That's what I would think too, but the hype around things like gpt-3, dall-e and alphago zero seems to imply we are right on the cusp on the singularity, not like what you are saying there is a fundamental gap between modern AI and the human brain.  And the hype is not just coming from the media, but appears to be coming from academia and the tech sector.  At least no one in academia is making this point clearly there is a fundamental, unbridgeable gap.
Answers.UserDisplayName: yters
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-18T19:17:43.093Z
Answers.Text: Yeah I see what you mean. Most of that's because people have to "advertise." Also the goalposts as to what AI is shifts constantly. I actually don't recommend people watch too much AI news or they'll ironically get a poor understanding of where the field is
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dan
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-11-18T18:54:37.523Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-11-18T18:55:17.523Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-11-18T18:55:17.523Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dan
Body: <p>As far as I can tell, all the successful AI paradigms are not Turing complete.</p>
  <p>On the other hand, the human mind is Turing complete.</p>
  <p>Why would we expect any of these AI paradigms to give us human level intelligence (AGI) if the former is not Turing complete while the latter is?</p>
  
Tags: <agi><turing-completeness>
Title: Why expect AGI from non-Turing complete AI paradigms?
UserDisplayName: yters
ThreadText: # Why expect AGI from non-Turing complete AI paradigms?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-11-18)
  
  As far as I can tell, all the successful AI paradigms are not Turing complete.
  
  On the other hand, the human mind is Turing complete.
  
  Why would we expect any of these AI paradigms to give us human level intelligence (AGI) if the former is not Turing complete while the latter is?
  
  **Tags:** agi, turing-completeness
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2022-11-18. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  > On the other hand, the human mind is Turing complete.
  
  This is a common confusion about what "Turing completeness" entails. The human brain is not Turing complete, as it is not infinite and doesn't operate on well defined rules (that we have totally cataloged). It *might* be equal to a linear bounded automaton. Turing completeness applies to rule sets, not the machines that run them. It's commonly applied to languages. Less technically, some people will say "Turing complete" to mean that it can do arbitrary or human-like computation, but this is not the true definition [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness).
  
  To your question:
  
  > Why would we expect any of these AI paradigms to give us human level intelligence (AGI) if the former is not Turing complete while the latter is?
  
  Assuming you're using the lay definition of Turing completeness, current AI algorithms are nowhere near close to what the human brain can do, and everyone in AI that I know understands that radical, as of yet unknown, advances in order to truly approximate the human mind.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: That's what I would think too, but the hype around things like gpt-3, dall-e and alphago zero seems to imply we are right on the cusp on the singularity, not like what you are saying there is a fundamental gap between modern AI and the human brain.  And the hype is not just coming from the media, but appears to be coming from academia and the tech sector.  At least no one in academia is making this point clearly there is a fundamental, unbridgeable gap.  
  > **username_1**: Yeah I see what you mean. Most of that's because people have to "advertise." Also the goalposts as to what AI is shifts constantly. I actually don't recommend people watch too much AI news or they'll ironically get a poor understanding of where the field is  
  
  ---
  
  