Ask any early 80s Sierra adventure game protagonist?
Relatedly, I'm working on natural language understanding, which I believe is key to AGI. https://lxagi.com
11–20 of 21 posts
Ask any early 80s Sierra adventure game protagonist?
Relatedly, I'm working on natural language understanding, which I believe is key to AGI. https://lxagi.com
It's not 'like' anything, computer programs don't have true feelings, though they can certainly be programmed to act as if they do. It can be programmed to say 'hey, life is great' but it means nothing. They have no soul, no spark from the divine.
It's not 'like' anything, computer programs don't have true feelings, though they can certainly be programmed to act as if they do. It can be programmed to say 'hey, life is great' but it means nothing. They have no soul, no spark from the divine.
And how do you prove that you have such a spark?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything that computes is probably "just computer processing". I wouldn't be shocked if enough translates that it's not totally useless
Humans have consciousness, which seems like something else related to the physics of our universe. The article hints at AGI having consciousness, but I can't see how that kind of argument can be made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans have consciousness, which seems like something else related to the physics of our universe. The article hints at AGI having consciousness, but I can't see how that kind of argument can be made.
Ok, assuming consciousness is both reliant on physics we don't understand, and that physics selectively avoids so blessing any machine, you're correct. Is there evidence to support either of those things? Absolutely not.
The computers and robots we build are carrying out instructions in a very mechanical way, however impressive they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how do you prove that you have such a spark?
Perhaps I don't have that spark, but deep within and after much thought and contemplation, I believe I have. I am very sure, regardless, that computer programs do not have it.
We don’t even know why we have consciousness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, assuming consciousness is both reliant on physics we don't understand, and that physics selectively avoids so blessing any machine, you're correct. Is there evidence to support either of those things? Absolutely not.
Why is consciousness in humans limited to our brains? We've never seen non-living material exhibit the characteristics of life in nature. The computers and robots we build are carrying out instructions in a very mechanical way, however impressive they are.
I think the jury is still out on whether or not we actually have any control over our thoughts.
I personally think that the really hard part in creating an AGI is going to be training. As an adult human, one can look at an object and instantly know what its texture is going to feel like on one's fingers or even lips, how it will bounce and if it will shatter. How did we gain that knowledge? As babies we put absolutely everything we saw into our mouths and sucked or chewed on it. As kids we played for hours on end with all kinds of toys and household objects. Coming up with a way of training an AGI to be human level will be hard, as there is such a vast scope of knowledge in "common sense" that will be exceedingly difficult to implant into an AGI without the AGI having an ability to interact with the real world.
On the other hand, once that body of knowledge becomes an available training data set, evolution can take off at speeds otherwise impossible in the real world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is consciousness in humans limited to our brains? We've never seen non-living material exhibit the characteristics of life in nature. The computers and robots we build are carrying out instructions in a very mechanical way, however impressive they are.
Aren’t our brains just carrying out instructions in a very impressive way? I think the jury is still out on whether or not we actually have any control over our thoughts.