Large Format Projectionist
@pluralistic has a way with words:
"This "AI debate" is pretty stupid, proceeding as it does from the foregone conclusion that adding compute power and data to the next-word-predictor program will eventually create a conscious being, which will then inevitably become a superbeing. This is a proposition akin to the idea that if we keep breeding faster and faster horses, we'll get a locomotive:"
Vidar Hokstad / Galaxy Bound
@Benhm3 @pluralistic It may not be inevitable that they will reach consciousness, but we simply don't know. Absent any evidence of anything supernatural in human brains that deviates from regular cause and effect, we don't know of any *barriers* to it.
But, sure, we also don't have any evidence to support the notion that it *is* inevitable.
Vidar Hokstad / Galaxy Bound
@Benhm3 @pluralistic This rests on an assumption that we know what causes consciousness and so know that the differences between "the next-word-predictor program" and humans fall on different sides of that divide. But that is both massively exaggerating what we know about consciousness and massively downplay current AI. To start with, the "next-word-predictor programs" are Turing complete with just a basic loop around them.
Vidar Hokstad / Galaxy Bound
@phiofx @Benhm3 @pluralistic There's nothing Messiah-like about that. It is the logical conclusion of *rejecting* anything supernatural in the brain. *If* the human brain and consciousness is subject to cause-and-effect following known laws of physics, then any Turing-complete system can compute every function a brain can, and it is indeed inherently a question of computation. It may still be that we won't find the right way anytime *soon*.
Or maybe the brain is supernatural.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.