4 ms·

A computer will be able to think in the same way a submarine can swim. Thinking is something we've anthropomorphized, and the moment a computer can do somethin

A computer will be able to think in the same way a submarine can swim. Thinking is something we've anthropomorphized, and the moment a computer can do something we previously considered 'thinking', we'll move the goalposts again.

Koshkin 6y ago
But what if it becomes much better at what we now consider ‘thinking’? Where would we then move the goalposts? To having morals, religious beliefs?
- GuiA 6y ago
  “It” has already become much better than us at many kinds of thinking (playing chess, go, solving equations, transcribing speech,...).
tiborsaas 6y ago
Just like science has pushed the idea of God beyond the Big Bang. It wouldn't be a bad achievement if it happened to machine intelligence.
TimTheTinker 6y ago
"Moving the goalposts" is only something we talk about when two ideological camps disagree about something. Ideology and beliefs aside, I think it's absolutely fine to change one's definition of something when one learns more. I think we all can benefit from better definitions in our thoughts and conversations. What you may call "moving goalposts" may actually be incremental refinement of an idea -- or a belief that is increasing in sophistication (or absurdity in some cases!) as more is understood.
- ggggtez 6y ago
  The two camps are "those who believe humans are special" and "those who believe strong AI can exist". The only reason you see people even arguing computers can never be conscious, is so we don't have to face the possibility of creating and enslaving a machine callable of suffering. The authors are certainly moving the goal posts when they concede that 4/5 humans in a vegetative state have no consciousness, but a full simulation of a healthy human mind never should be considered self aware. And yet in the same breath claim this lack of consciousness allows you to destroy a robot in your front yard, but stay startlingly silent on what that means for those same in the vegetative state.
friendlybus 6y ago
It's not possible to separate the human aspects of thought from it's definition in this context. We think about feelings and emotions and they are fuel to change our thinking. A mechanical computer can "think" just like an electrical one. A series of gears and pulleys can produce a difference of information to the observer. Reducing thought away from the human gives you a recursive spiral down to the bottom of physics. It needs to be embodied in a human or you hit philosophical problems.

Koshkin 6y ago

But what if it becomes much better at what we now consider ‘thinking’? Where would we then move the goalposts? To having morals, religious beliefs?

GuiA 6y ago
“It” has already become much better than us at many kinds of thinking (playing chess, go, solving equations, transcribing speech,...).

tiborsaas 6y ago

Just like science has pushed the idea of God beyond the Big Bang. It wouldn't be a bad achievement if it happened to machine intelligence.

TimTheTinker 6y ago

"Moving the goalposts" is only something we talk about when two ideological camps disagree about something. Ideology and beliefs aside, I think it's absolutely fine to change one's definition of something when one learns more. I think we all can benefit from better definitions in our thoughts and conversations. What you may call "moving goalposts" may actually be incremental refinement of an idea -- or a belief that is increasing in sophistication (or absurdity in some cases!) as more is understood.

ggggtez 6y ago
The two camps are "those who believe humans are special" and "those who believe strong AI can exist". The only reason you see people even arguing computers can never be conscious, is so we don't have to face the possibility of creating and enslaving a machine callable of suffering. The authors are certainly moving the goal posts when they concede that 4/5 humans in a vegetative state have no consciousness, but a full simulation of a healthy human mind never should be considered self aware. And yet in the same breath claim this lack of consciousness allows you to destroy a robot in your front yard, but stay startlingly silent on what that means for those same in the vegetative state.

friendlybus 6y ago

It's not possible to separate the human aspects of thought from it's definition in this context. We think about feelings and emotions and they are fuel to change our thinking. A mechanical computer can "think" just like an electrical one. A series of gears and pulleys can produce a difference of information to the observer. Reducing thought away from the human gives you a recursive spiral down to the bottom of physics. It needs to be embodied in a human or you hit philosophical problems.