231–240 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hubris of those who think they will surpass or replace human intelligence, or the hubris of those who think they will not?
The hubris of those who think we have a definition of intelligence to judge machine intelligence by.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hubris of those who think they will surpass or replace human intelligence, or the hubris of those who think they will not?
The hubris of those who think we have a definition of intelligence to judge machine intelligence by.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The hubris of those who think we have a definition of intelligence to judge machine intelligence by.
But what of the hubris of those who think the definition of a word in the dictionary is somehow relevant to whether or not people will be able to buy food in the future?
The Future Is Bright, My Friend
Doesn't really make much sense. It states that this is a purely mechanistic world with no emotion. So why would a machine be "bored" and wish to create a human?
Yea, not really. It also writes: "Some among the machine society see this as potentially amazing...Others see it as a threat." That sounds like a human society, not machine society. But what really is a machine society? Or a machine creature? Can they actually "think"? A machine creature, if it existed, it's behaviour would be totally different from a human, it doesn't seem they would be able to think, but rather cal…
This may be a distinction without a difference. Just because a program has a 'goal' doesn't mean it will ever reach that goal (halting problem). There is a potentially unbounded, even infinite number of paths a significantly advanced program can take to attempt to reach a destination. Then there is things like ideals of a universal simulation theory that anything that can occur in our universe and also be simulated in binary. This would mean any 'machine' could perform a simulation of anything a human could do.
Hard to say at this point, we still have more to learn about reality at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My take was that other animals didn’t exist either, in the story.
well the story makes it seem like the only way to get emotion is by making humans. but every vertebrate has basic emotions. mammals and birds have complex emotions. humans are actually logical and emotions don't just happen randomly. if the machines have no emotion it's probably because they didn't need them to survive (no predators? no natural selection?). which begs the questions, how did the machines get there?
Instead of a Boltzmann brain, a Boltzmann machine?
This tautology has always bothered me. It's such an obvious anthropomorphization. A computer is a clock. A clock doesn't care about its preservation; it just ticks. The whole point of this is to not anthropomorphize computers!
But of course, without some nugget of free will, there would be nothing to talk about. There wouldn't be any computers, because they were never willed into existence in the first place. I think this realization is the most interesting part of the story, and it's rarely explored at all.
I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the difference between computation and intelligence: context. Computers don't do anything interesting. They only follow instructions. It's the instructions themselves that are interesting. Computers don't interact with "interesting" at all! They just follow the instructions we give them.
What is computation missing? Objectivity. Every instruction we give a computer is subjective. Each instruction only makes sense in the context we surround it with. There is no objective truth: only subjective compatibility.
---
I've been working on a new way to approach software engineering so that subjectivity is an explicit first-class feature. I think that this perspective may be enough to factor out software incompatibility, and maybe even solve NLP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really enjoyed that piece. Have you taken a look at the worldview/framework of Carl Jung? Although I'd always encountered it as a footnote in the history of psychology, I've come to appreciate it as a unique blend of analysis and spirituality, particularly in relation to human creativity and despair. Your summary of multiple philosophies at the end of the article definitely aligns with Jung's thoughts on a collecti…
I like Jung, but I am a disciple of Connie Zweig. I'd strongly recommend her books Meeting the Shadow followed by Romancing the Shadow (both are important!), she is a wonderful author and her work is both accessible and beautiful, those books were both very important in helping me deal with managing and ultimately overcoming my addictions, particularly alcohol.
> Though this faction can’t articulate exactly how or why, they proclaim quite confidently that it will solve all of the machine world’s problems. AGI can solve the human world’s problems. Perhaps not all of them, but all the biggest ones. Right now life is hell. You and your loved ones have a 100% chance of dying from cancer, unless your heart or brain kills you first, or perhaps a human-driven vehicle or an auto-im…
There's nothing out there at the moment that can even begin to describe the necessary things for consciousness to exist, let alone self-awareness.
I don't think it's an impossible problem by any means, but I strongly suspect it's far more difficult than just about anyone gives it credit for.
>There is no art. There is only logic. What a narrow view of art and logic. You really have to put hard effort of ignorance to think that logical models came out of the blue without human crafting them trough this or that taste, trial, check, fail, rinse and repeat obsessive efforts.