4 ms·

Of course you can understand your own goals. You decided to reply to my comment, that's a goal. You used your existing knowledge of the world, language and tech

Of course you can understand your own goals. You decided to reply to my comment, that's a goal. You used your existing knowledge of the world, language and technological tools to achieve it. And you did! Can a goal-oriented model do something like that, in a general sense? Note that I'm not talking about life purpose, but goals in the sense of wanting a result and performing the tasks needed to achieve it. Asking if your wants are "real" or just part of a purposeless process doesn't really add much to the discussion at hand.

Isinlor 6y ago
> Asking if your wants are "real" or just part of a purposeless process doesn't really add much to the discussion at hand. You were asking: in what sense does the model itself "want" to achieve its goal? IMO there is no much difference between my own "want" and "want" of a simpler model. Granted, I am more skilled at achieving instrumental goals under more varied set of conditions. But as I said, I do not understand why I have the goals I have. I also strongly believe that I do not control my own goals. There is no mechanism in physics that would allow for control of goals.
- pedrosbmartins 6y ago
  > Granted, I am more skilled at achieving instrumental goals under more varied set of conditions. Then we are in agreement. This statement is right around the threshold where we can take this discussion before coming to metaphysics territory. My argument was simply this: the AI technology we have now is much closer to simpler "mindless" models, like Linear Programming or inference statistics models, than to general human intelligence. Calling your model "goal-oriented" or saying that an AI system can, say, "see dogs in a photo" is simply an anthropomorphization.