2 ms·

There are tests to distinguish gold from silicon. And so there will be for however your machine works. I cannot say now what those test will be, any more than y

There are tests to distinguish gold from silicon. And so there will be for however your machine works. I cannot say now what those test will be, any more than you can make such a machine. Something not being the thing it is simulating entails there will be tests to distinguish it. The tests cannot be "cognative" because there is no cognition going on. A simulation of an animal does not live in the world, experience and understand it -- nor render the world intelligible to itself and others. A simulation of an animal is just a current flowing around a wire. I would guess the tests will always, actually, be quite simple -- perhaps not expressible as a single conversation -- because somehow like a chess game it has every infinite sequence of conversations available to it. Perhaps, in a novel social situation adapting to evolving minds as they respond to each other. Suppose this is recorded today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99IitWYZ0aU#t=60s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99IitWYZ0aU#t=60s and your machine is sat in the audience. The question is then: "What does Kenneth think about the audience's laughter?"

Dylan16807 9y ago
> There are tests to distinguish gold from silicon. And so there will be for however your machine works. Unless something was coded wrong, gold inside the simulation will give the same numbers as gold outside, so you can't tell which is which. Let me be clear here. You don't touch the machine directly, you get the numbers the simulation spits out. The 'proof of concept' interaction is that you are on a video call with the atoms and photons inside the simulation. The video looks like a person, and your job is finding any difference between it and a video call with a real person. > Something not being the thing it is simulating entails there will be tests to distinguish it. That implies that the atoms and photons are being simulated incorrectly. Are you saying it's not possible to have an accurate simulation of atoms and photons? > A simulation of an animal does not live in the world The simulated atoms interact with a simulated cage, so they should give the same results despite being mere electricity. > I would guess the tests will always, actually, be quite simple -- perhaps not expressible as a single conversation -- because somehow like a chess game it has every infinite sequence of conversations available to it. > Perhaps, in a novel social situation adapting to evolving minds as they respond to each other. > The question is then: "What does Kenneth think about the audience's laughter?" The simulated atoms will change simulated orientation the same way real atoms would. If you look for physical evidence of learning you'll find the same molecules moving the same way. Why would the simulation fail this test?
- mjburgess 9y ago
  > You don't touch the machine directly, you get the numbers the simulation spits out. So you're restricting the use of this machine to a situation designed to fool human beings? The criterion for general intelligence is actual intelligence, not putting it in ideal conditions and seeing if people are fooled. > Why would the simulation fail this test? It seems like you think this machine is going to simulate the entire universe, evolve its model of the universe and therefore perfectly predict its next state -- and on the basis of this prediction provide an answer. Sure, perhaps I will concede: if you are able to simulate the universe in infinite detail you might be able to perfectly predict its next state. This isnt any ambition of any one however. And has nothing to do with AI. If the precondition of AI is "a perfect simulation of everything", then that's close enough -- for me -- to call it impossible. Even so, in this sense however, we do not " simulate gold " . What it means to "simulate gold" is to take some small number of aspects, model them with equations, and run those equations. A video game that allowed you to perform mass-spectrometry on any possible compound, along with everything else you could possibly do to everything -- would I think, be a video game which requires a whole other universe to exist. And so, it seems your argument is that "when scientists can model the universe in infinite detail so as to perfectly predict its next state, we will have AI!" (and, as far as the quantum state of brains go, it's close enough to inifinity to model all of that).. OK, sure. I don't know how scientists are going to build a universe simulator without a "theory of everything" and how, even with such a theory, a machine can predict the next-state of a large system in sub-infinite times. Processing merely some particle collisions in the LHC takes months. I cannot see how a machine is going to actually track the evolving entangled state of an audience of human beings. "Infinitely precise information about the universe" I think actually requires you to actually be the universe. That's maybe a speculation however, but I would be surprised if the universe could be described in less volume than it occupies. And if an infinity of precision (ie., perfect parity in every simulated result) is actually possible without the target system. A machine can only simulate what is known. The actual behaviour of the universe is much larger than what is known. As soon as we discover something new, then we have a test to prove the machine is a machine.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago

Dylan16807 9y ago

> There are tests to distinguish gold from silicon. And so there will be for however your machine works. Unless something was coded wrong, gold inside the simulation will give the same numbers as gold outside, so you can't tell which is which. Let me be clear here. You don't touch the machine directly, you get the numbers the simulation spits out. The 'proof of concept' interaction is that you are on a video call with the atoms and photons inside the simulation. The video looks like a person, and your job is finding any difference between it and a video call with a real person. > Something not being the thing it is simulating entails there will be tests to distinguish it. That implies that the atoms and photons are being simulated incorrectly. Are you saying it's not possible to have an accurate simulation of atoms and photons? > A simulation of an animal does not live in the world The simulated atoms interact with a simulated cage, so they should give the same results despite being mere electricity. > I would guess the tests will always, actually, be quite simple -- perhaps not expressible as a single conversation -- because somehow like a chess game it has every infinite sequence of conversations available to it. > Perhaps, in a novel social situation adapting to evolving minds as they respond to each other. > The question is then: "What does Kenneth think about the audience's laughter?" The simulated atoms will change simulated orientation the same way real atoms would. If you look for physical evidence of learning you'll find the same molecules moving the same way. Why would the simulation fail this test?

mjburgess 9y ago
> You don't touch the machine directly, you get the numbers the simulation spits out. So you're restricting the use of this machine to a situation designed to fool human beings? The criterion for general intelligence is actual intelligence, not putting it in ideal conditions and seeing if people are fooled. > Why would the simulation fail this test? It seems like you think this machine is going to simulate the entire universe, evolve its model of the universe and therefore perfectly predict its next state -- and on the basis of this prediction provide an answer. Sure, perhaps I will concede: if you are able to simulate the universe in infinite detail you might be able to perfectly predict its next state. This isnt any ambition of any one however. And has nothing to do with AI. If the precondition of AI is "a perfect simulation of everything", then that's close enough -- for me -- to call it impossible. Even so, in this sense however, we do not " simulate gold " . What it means to "simulate gold" is to take some small number of aspects, model them with equations, and run those equations. A video game that allowed you to perform mass-spectrometry on any possible compound, along with everything else you could possibly do to everything -- would I think, be a video game which requires a whole other universe to exist. And so, it seems your argument is that "when scientists can model the universe in infinite detail so as to perfectly predict its next state, we will have AI!" (and, as far as the quantum state of brains go, it's close enough to inifinity to model all of that).. OK, sure. I don't know how scientists are going to build a universe simulator without a "theory of everything" and how, even with such a theory, a machine can predict the next-state of a large system in sub-infinite times. Processing merely some particle collisions in the LHC takes months. I cannot see how a machine is going to actually track the evolving entangled state of an audience of human beings. "Infinitely precise information about the universe" I think actually requires you to actually be the universe. That's maybe a speculation however, but I would be surprised if the universe could be described in less volume than it occupies. And if an infinity of precision (ie., perfect parity in every simulated result) is actually possible without the target system. A machine can only simulate what is known. The actual behaviour of the universe is much larger than what is known. As soon as we discover something new, then we have a test to prove the machine is a machine.
- Dylan16807 9y ago