4 ms·
> 3. That human intelligence is in some way "universal". I don't understand this argument enough to explain the parody. Can someone else chime in? This is a re
by myhf 10y ago
> 3. That human intelligence is in some way "universal". I don't understand this argument enough to explain the parody. Can someone else chime in?
This is a reference to the principle of computational equivalence. All Turing-complete systems are capable of emulating each other. A human can execute any program a machine can (only slower), and derive benefit from the results even if he doesn't fully understand the process.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofComputationalEquivalence.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofComputationalEquival...
- rntz 10y agoI'm familiar with Turing-equivalence, but the argument in that section didn't seem analogous to me. In the first place, it's about human universality, not computer universality; so an implicit premise of the "parodied argument" would have to be something like "human intelligence is Turing-complete" - I've seen no argument against machine superintelligence that starts from this premise (although not all arguments depend on rejecting it, either).
- johncolanduoni 10y agoRejecting human intelligence being Turing-complete in the same sense as a particular conventional computer (i.e as a linear bounded automaton) would be a pretty hard sell. It would be equivalent to claiming that there was a single-threaded C program that a human with unbounded time and scratch paper couldn't step through.
- scandox 10y agoWhy does the threading matter?
- johncolanduoni 10y agoIt doesn't, but I think it's an easier sell that humans can do that than a multithreaded case. Especially because it introduces a lot more undefined behavior.
- scandox 10y agoSeems to me undefined behaviour is the beginning of something approximately human.
- E6300 10y agoThe argument, as I can gleam from TFA, is as follows: Since a human mind is equivalent to a Turing machine minus infinite memory, and a human is capable of using outside tools to expand their own memory arbitrarily, it's impossible for a Turing machine to be "more intelligent" than a human, since a human could, given sufficient time and external memory, execute the same program that machine executed and arrive at the same result.
- crivtox 10y agoBut how is that used as an argument against superinteligence?.I could say computers are already as intelligent as human because computers are Turing complete.How do you go from computational equivalence to saying computers can't be better than humans .