3 ms·
I'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 compu
by rntz 10y ago
I'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.