4 ms·
X = A+B A= C+D B = E+F Love = X = A+B = C+D+E+F Obviously the above is contrived and abstracted, but you get my point. If I took a little bit of time, I can
by keenmaster 6y ago
X = A+B
A= C+D
B = E+F
Love = X = A+B = C+D+E+F
Obviously the above is contrived and abstracted, but you get my point. If I took a little bit of time, I can schematically map every word to makes up the definition of love, and how they interact. Then I can associate 3D, real world graphical observations to each of those words and then love as a concept holistically (as humans do, we're not just confined to text data, we observe extremely rich 3D visual data, and audio data, and touch data, etc...). There's no reason to believe a massive "correlation machine" can't do the same thing with the right algorithms, enough compute power, and multimodal inputs. Furthermore, we can make the correlation machine even better by specializing parts of the hardware for certain tasks, just like the brain.
- saberience 6y agoAnd it still wouldn't be the same. Again, our notion of love is tied into having consciousness, which machines would not have. We still don't even understand what consciousness is, how to define it, or how it is generated in the brain. While machines are not consciousness they could never "understand" or "experience" what we call "love" because love again is tied up with our experience of consciousness, the idea of mortality, and having a physical presence in the world.
- keenmaster 6y agoWhat is consciousness, and what unique non-tautological properties does it give us? I know of the general idea of consciousness, but I can’t boil it down to first principles. Self-awareness, on the other hand, is more tangible. AI would seem capable of internal cognition, reflection on past experiences, etc...They might not have the desire or need for such reflection, but they would certainly have the ability.