Comment on We need to stop pretending AI is intelligent

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• Simulation6@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  The book The Emperors new Mind is old (1989), but it gave a good argument why machine base AI was not possible. Our minds work on a fundamentally different principle then Turing machines.

  source

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    It’s hard to see that books argument from the Wikipedia entry, but I don’t see it arguing that intelligence needs to have senses, flesh, nerves, pain and pleasure. It’s just saying computer algorithms are not what humans use.

    source

    • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I think what he is implying is that current computer design will never be able to gain consciousness. Maybe a fundamentally different type of computer can, but is anything like that even on the horizon?

      source

      • jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        possibly.

        current machines aren’t really capable of what we would consider sentience because of the von neumann bottleneck.

        simply put, computers consider memory and computation separate tasks leading to an explosion in necessary system resources for tasks that would be relatively trivial for a brain-system to do, largely due to things like buffers and memory management code. lots of this is hidden from the engineer and end user these days so people aren’t really super aware of exactly how fucking complex most modern computational systems are.

        this is why if, for example, i threw a ball at you you will reflexively catch it, dodge it, or parry it; and your brain will do so for an amount of energy similar to that required to power a simple LED. this is a highly complex physics calculation ran in a very short amount of time for an incredibly low amount of energy relative to the amount of information in the system. the brain is capable of this because your brain doesn’t store information in a chest and later retrieve it like contemporary computers do. brains are turing machines, they just aren’t von neumann machines. in the brain, information is stored… within the actual system itself. the mechanical operation of the brain is so highly optimized that it likely isn’t physically possible to make a much more efficient computer without venturing into the realm of strange quantum mechanics. even then, the verdict is still out on whether or not natural brains don’t do something like this to some degree as well. we know a whole lot about the brain but it seems some damnable incompleteness theorem-adjacent affect prevents us from easily comprehending the actual mechanics of our own brains from inside the brain itself in a wholistic manner.

        that’s actually one of the things AI and machine learning might be great for. if it is impossible to explain the human experience from inside of the human experience… then we must build a non-human experience and ask its perspective on the matter - again, simply put.

        source
      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I believe what you say. I don’t believe that is what the article is saying.

        source
    • Asetru@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      If you can bear the cringe of the interviewer, there’s a good interview with Penrose that goes on the same direction: m.youtube.com/watch?v=e9484gNpFF8

      source
  • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    “than”…

    IF THEN

    MORE THAN

    source
  • MangoCats@feddit.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Our minds work on a fundamentally different principle then Turing machines.

    Is that an advantage, or a disadvantage? I’m sure the answer depends on the setting.

    source
• fodor@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Actually it’s a very very brief summary of some philosophical arguments that happened between the 1950s and the 1980s. If you’re interested in the topic, you could go read about them.

  source

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I’m not attacking philosophical arguments between the 1950s and the 1980s.

    I’m pointing out that the claim that consciousness must form inside a fleshy body is not supported by any evidence.

    source
• bitjunkie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  philosopher

  Here’s why. It’s a quote from a pure academic attempting to describe something practical.

  source

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    The philosopher has made an unproven assumption. An erroneously logical leap. Something an academic shouldn’t do.

    Just because everything we currently consider conscious has a physical presence, does not imply that consciousness requires a physical body.

    source