This may help relieve some anxiety.
This may help relieve some anxiety.
https://principia-scientific.org/neurosurgeon-outlines-why-machines-cannot-think/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+psintl+(Principia+Scientific+Intl+-+Latest+News)
https://principia-scientific.org/neurosurgeon-outlines-why-machines-cannot-think/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+psintl+(Principia+Scientific+Intl+-+Latest+News)
If the computational systems where designed to process and explore its output goals in a manner that considered aboutness; would not all the iterative steps of computation in essence have meaning?
ReplyDeleteIf the output goal is either very board or vague - could this not potentially result in a basic artificial intelligence? Ex: ADA?
The difference between computational functionality and intentionality were addressed in the article.
ReplyDeleteThat AI will be able to solve complex situations( i e traveling salesman and beyond) and be equipped with ever-increasing ability of situational awareness. Besides, the behavior of ends justify the means is not acceptable in complex human civilization. As with our Beast of Burden and machines now, every device run by an AI will also have a owner / operator / Guardian that will be legally responsible for its actions.
Allow me to introduce moral agency, and tie that to intentionality. Then compare them to computational functionality.
Note - this examination does not include anything that might be possible with XM.
Interesting read, makes a very valid point. Though another major theory could possibly contradict it: that the universe may be in and of itself a computer. Not in the sense of circuit boards and electricity, but in that there exist fundamental laws, programming if you will, that dictate to the universe how it operates. Matter and energy all have fixed properties, the speed of light for instance is fixed. That this framework of physics exists and is carried out in ways pertaining to itself, evolving the universe over billions of years, it could be argued that the universe may be one large computational system, or at least is operating like one.
ReplyDeleteIn which case, we ourselves could be seen as outputs of these algorithms, and yet we still exhibit meaning and aboutness. So I think it's conceivable that truly sentient AI could exist, but not how we expect it to or in any way that we can yet imagine.
Simulated reality, subset of or extension to the dream argument. I don't know how popular it is but it is 2500 years more ludicrous then our oldest recording of that argument, that it lost.
ReplyDeleteOne must begin by positing that existence exists. To do otherwise destroys the platform from which you argue.
I don't mean to discount existence, it's just a theory of how existence works
ReplyDeleteThe labeling of the temporal spatial unit Planck itself set off many Picalized Universe theories. There's another come around recently called E8, where in reality is the shadow cast by an 8 dimensional crystal. That one is so wrong one could call it religious. I have a link to it in the open discussion section.
ReplyDeletewith this thread I wanted to allay the fears of mechanical AI.
Haha a crystal? Really? Wow, but yeah I agree that at face value of the universe as we know or are able to infer, true AI isn't possible
ReplyDeleteThinking randomly on it all; even Asimov AI never operated outside of scope or direction from their handler.
ReplyDelete