Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 161 posts

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#41

Post by petra »

andrewla wrote: post #22

> Look, clearly we’re machines governed by the laws of physics. We’re computers made of meat, as Marvin Minsky put it. This really seem inescapable to me. The remaining arguments all seem like smokescreens. Being able to copy computer programs? Reproducing the running state of even a moderately complex distributed system is effectively impossible, so this argument bothers me not at all. Even if there is some quantum…

There are already some AI systems with basic forms of consciousness at [1]. I wonder to what human mental age they are equal to ?

[1]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/automaton-robots-b...

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#42

Post by andyh2 »

joe_the_user wrote: post #33
andrewla wrote: post #22

> Look, clearly we’re machines governed by the laws of physics. We’re computers made of meat, as Marvin Minsky put it. This really seem inescapable to me. The remaining arguments all seem like smokescreens. Being able to copy computer programs? Reproducing the running state of even a moderately complex distributed system is effectively impossible, so this argument bothers me not at all. Even if there is some quantum…

That said, I feel that we are extremely far away from producing a computer-based consciousness Views of distance to the production of "conscious" machines are likely all over the place because there aren't really any clear ideas about what consciousness is and why it's important. * Is it one state of mind that represents another state of mind? We trivially can construct computers with states which reflect each other.…

I believe the broadest consensus defines consciousness as having a subjective experience.

What's unclear, and some deem impossible, is how we can externally detect consciousness. A machine could act and respond in a manner indistinguishable from humans but still be unconscious.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#43

Post by andrewla »

mariodiana wrote: post #31

Have some fun and google the following: technological analogies for the human brain in history For the last 30 or 40 years, the brain has been "a computer." Prior to that, it was: (insert latest and greatest technology). I'm sure we're on to something, but I think it best we take it all with a grain of salt.

The difference between then and now is that we have the Church-Turing Thesis, and the less precise Universal Church-Turing Thesis.

A violation of the UCTT would be a Big Deal.

Because of this, we now know that previous models of the human brain (as a hydraulic system, as a mechanical system of differential gears, as a weaving machine) are, in fact, also capable of expressing all computable functions (and we can even add Minesweeper and Conway's Game of Life).

I don't think anyone is saying that the brain is directly analogous to a computer (in the sense that it has a CPU and volatile memory or anything) so much as the fact that a computer, sufficiently powerful, could compute the same things that our brain is capable of computing, because of Church-Turing.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#44

Post by Raphmedia »

epx wrote: post #39

How useful would be a conscious computer? It would have to be protected by some rights (at the very least, equivalent to animal rights), they cease to be machines. The narrow-task AI efforts make more sense from an economical point of view, and I think they have actually more disruptive consequences (massive job extinction etc.). That said, I believe that consciousness is "supernatural", something like another state…

> equivalent to animal rights

Look at chickens. Piled on one another, slaughtered at will. We would simply stack conscious computers on one another and then delete them when they are not needed.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#45

Post by Zigurd »

drabiega wrote: post #40
Zigurd wrote: post #36

I don't see a reason for AIs to be similar to human intellects. They are not animals. They are not "alive" the way an animal is. They cannot die as all animals do. They have no genes. They did not evolve. They don't have brains that evolved to keep hairless chimps alive. They don't have a "jump away from snakes" circuit. They won't have evolved our heuristics that make us suck at probability and risk assessment. When…

Well we might find, for instance, that in order to create a general purpose AI which can develop intellectually quickly enough to be useful we have to make it sufficiently like us that it can understand and participate in our culture.

It's easy to see the attraction of making an AI that is relatable to humans. Some people will claim that, if we are able to build an AI, that it isn't a real intelligence because it does not have our foibles. But I think making a human-like AI is both difficult and dangerous. One would need to understand what one is trying to simulate, and some aspects, like the drive for propagating genes, could create unnecessary hazards.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#46

Post by drabiega »

andyh2 wrote: post #42
joe_the_user wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said, I feel that we are extremely far away from producing a computer-based consciousness Views of distance to the production of "conscious" machines are likely all over the place because there aren't really any clear ideas about what consciousness is and why it's important. * Is it one state of mind that represents another state of mind? We trivially can construct computers with states which reflect each other.…

I believe the broadest consensus defines consciousness as having a subjective experience. What's unclear, and some deem impossible, is how we can externally detect consciousness. A machine could act and respond in a manner indistinguishable from humans but still be unconscious.

Not just a machine. I agree with definition of consciousness, but it's implication is that we can only ever be sure of our own present consciousness. The consciousness of other people and even our past selves can't be verified.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#47

Post by gpderetta »

The most interesting definition I have seen of consciousness is [1] "the mind thinking about the mind thinking", i.e. some sort of meta-level "diagnostic process".

What I find interesting is that this definition supports awareness and an the existence of an 'I', but doesn't imply any sort of control or direct influence on the unconscious mind for which there seem to be experimental evidence against. Instead the result of this (literal) 'reflection' would be fed back to the unconscious mind as a sensorial input as any other.

Such a reflective process could possibly arise evolutionarily as it is a way to improve the efficiency of the thought processes.

I know absolutely nothing about neural network, but I wonder what would happen if the time series of the internal signals of a NN was fed to another NN and its output back into the first NN. Probably nothing stable at all and training would be 'interesting'.

Another interesting thing is that consciousness would be 'just' a process and not necessary for intelligence to arise. Peter Watts in 'Blindsight' [2] explores this last point in depth.

[1] Unfortunately I can't remember were I read this reference nor I have been able to track it.

[2] An extremely good first contact hard scifi novel, can be read for free from the author website.

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#48

Post by gjm11 »

Animats wrote: post #27

I've suggested before that AI focus on animal-level AI (operating in the real world) for a while and STFU about "consciousness". Blithering about consciousness doesn't seem to lead anywhere. Penrose is strange. He once sued a toilet-paper manufacturer for supposedly copying his Penrose non-repeating tiling scheme for the embossing pattern on their toilet paper. He lost.

I can't find any record on the web of the outcome of his lawsuit. I always assumed they settled. Are you sure he lost?

Re: Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose

#50

Post by ArkyBeagle »

spdegabrielle wrote: post #38

To quote @worrydream "Worrying about sentient AI as the ice caps melt is like standing on the tracks as the train rushes in, worrying about being hit by lightning"

Our species is largely the dominant species because of one or more extinction events. Most likely "more" ; a significant chain of them.

And perhaps better computing is why the polar ice caps are only shrinking this fast and not faster. We normally see 30-40 MPG in cars, and that is due to a lot of things, but the one big thing is electronic engine control. That is one in a long list of reasons why it's important to at least see how we can make these things work better.

Post reply on HN