4 ms·

I disagree with your disagreement. Talking - language - is intimately connected to "science", which, as a form of human knowledge, is about reducing the complex

I disagree with your disagreement. Talking - language - is intimately connected to "science", which, as a form of human knowledge, is about reducing the complexity of the universe down into semantic constructs that humans can appreciate. That is, "scientific knowledge" does not exist except in the form of human language. There is no other meaning to "science" (or "knowledge") except "making the universe intelligible to humans". A machine must also labor under these constraints, and so ultimately must produce knowledge in the form of language/semantics in order to be doing "science".

morgante 10y ago
I agree that science requires some way of encoding and communicating information, but I don't agree that such a system must resemble human language. An alien system could equally do "science" even if their entire communication system was binary bits.
- astazangasta 10y ago
  Sure, but unless they're willing to communicate their benevolent intent to us, alien science should be viewed as hostile. What is the point of a machine science that is not amenable to human examination? How could we be sure that the machine is acting in concert with human interests? A purely machine science is anathema; if the machine does science, it must participate in the community of human scientists to validate its conclusions, or else its 'knowledge', however encoded, is as obscure and terrifying as the path of an impending asteroid.
vintermann 10y ago
Limiting science to knowledge expressed in human language seems unreasonable. I think that it's the degree to which a system can understand and predict the world that matters - not whether it can explain it to us. Might as well say that German mathematics isn't real mathematics, because it's all incomprehensible gobbledegook to someone who doesn't speak German.
- kazagistar 10y ago
  Scientific knowledge already isn't expressed in normal human language; scientists build up a language of mathematical symbols, diagrams, and domain specific terms to encode and communicate their understanding in a more effective format. After all, how well do you understand a thing if you can't explain it? I suspect the real issue will be difference in mental skills... there might not be a human who can understand what the AI understands, even if it is very good at explaining.

morgante 10y ago

I agree that science requires some way of encoding and communicating information, but I don't agree that such a system must resemble human language. An alien system could equally do "science" even if their entire communication system was binary bits.

astazangasta 10y ago
Sure, but unless they're willing to communicate their benevolent intent to us, alien science should be viewed as hostile. What is the point of a machine science that is not amenable to human examination? How could we be sure that the machine is acting in concert with human interests? A purely machine science is anathema; if the machine does science, it must participate in the community of human scientists to validate its conclusions, or else its 'knowledge', however encoded, is as obscure and terrifying as the path of an impending asteroid.

vintermann 10y ago

Limiting science to knowledge expressed in human language seems unreasonable. I think that it's the degree to which a system can understand and predict the world that matters - not whether it can explain it to us. Might as well say that German mathematics isn't real mathematics, because it's all incomprehensible gobbledegook to someone who doesn't speak German.

kazagistar 10y ago
Scientific knowledge already isn't expressed in normal human language; scientists build up a language of mathematical symbols, diagrams, and domain specific terms to encode and communicate their understanding in a more effective format. After all, how well do you understand a thing if you can't explain it? I suspect the real issue will be difference in mental skills... there might not be a human who can understand what the AI understands, even if it is very good at explaining.