31–40 of 66 posts
From a skim read this article is pretty sloppy. It argues that the human OEM theory of mind is in some way unique or unreproducible. This conclusion is completely unsupported by the text, which is just a sophisticated word salad.
Can someone drop a TLDR for the at-work crowd? would be V grateful
From a skim read this article is pretty sloppy. It argues that the human OEM theory of mind is in some way unique or unreproducible. This conclusion is completely unsupported by the text, which is just a sophisticated word salad.
Well you gotta love and respect the site's mission statement: Whatever it is, we're against it
> What does all this mean? Watson may beat us at Jeopardy, but we are convinced we have something AI will always lack: We are agents in the world, whose decisions, choices, actions are made meaningful by the content of the belief/desire pairings that bring them about. But what if the theory of mind that underwrites our distinctiveness is build on sand, is just another useful illusion foisted upon us by the Darwinian…
From a skim read this article is pretty sloppy. It argues that the human OEM theory of mind is in some way unique or unreproducible. This conclusion is completely unsupported by the text, which is just a sophisticated word salad.
Just a developer, but is this author subtly arguing that in the end, behaviorism has some sort of validity?
> What does all this mean? Watson may beat us at Jeopardy, but we are convinced we have something AI will always lack: We are agents in the world, whose decisions, choices, actions are made meaningful by the content of the belief/desire pairings that bring them about. But what if the theory of mind that underwrites our distinctiveness is build on sand, is just another useful illusion foisted upon us by the Darwinian…
I wonder if what you are referring to as illusions could not just be realities of our emergent physical needs for individual, short-term survival, but also for collective, long-term survival. I guess it's possible that some human illusions such as some of our concepts of right and wrong, morality, or natural rights, would actually also be emergent for AI in the long-run if these illusions are necessary or consistent with survival ir exitence in our universe?
Can someone drop a TLDR for the at-work crowd? would be V grateful
I imagine planting bread crumbs after already walking a trail, as a best guess narrative of where I walked and why.
> What makes some neural firings [semantically significant] is just their place in the causal chain, the pathway to further behavior. Rats choose among alternative pathways as a result of neural firings produced by previous experience. But it’s not because these neuron circuits contain statements about anything.
> By colonizing consciousness, spoken language turned [consciousness] into a monologue of silent speech, tricking us that the meaning of spoken words is given by thoughts’ content when its just silent sounds passing through consciousness. Neuroscience shows that that in our brains the neural circuits neither have nor need content to do their jobs.
> What does all this mean? Watson may beat us at Jeopardy, but we are convinced we have something AI will always lack: We are agents in the world, whose decisions, choices, actions are made meaningful by the content of the belief/desire pairings that bring them about. But what if the theory of mind that underwrites our distinctiveness is build on sand, is just another useful illusion foisted upon us by the Darwinian…
a) Platonic realism is the only way our semantic categories/abstractions could be meaningful.
b) The world is physical (platonism is not true).
c) All our categories are meaningless! Our abstractions are unreal!
You can see it all follows from a), and there are serious questions about whether this is actually a physicalist philosophy...