2 ms·
The philosophical musings about what it means to "draw a human" are pedantic and really not relevant. My point is that "dog cannot do dog-related task" does not
by solipsism 7y ago
The philosophical musings about what it means to "draw a human" are pedantic and really not relevant. My point is that "dog cannot do dog-related task" does not imply or even suggest that "human cannot do human-related task". It's pseudo-logic of the sort that is unfortunately often very convincing to people.
- wpietri 7y agoThey are relevant because you used "draw a human" to prove something wrong. If mine was irrelevant, so was yours. The reason "dog brain can't design an artificial dog brain" is a useful contribution is that it gives people an intuitive understanding of a complex truth: things can't fully model themselves. Dogs can't fully understand dogs. People can't fully understand people. It's plausible to me that humans can evolve something akin to AGI. It's also plausible to me that a vast number of humans working together will manage to stumble into creating AGI. But I see no reason to think that humans have the intellectual capacity to understand a human-level mind well enough to build one intentionally.