3 ms·

Your argument, then, hinges on the fact that a human being can only be in one place at a certain time, thus their experience of the world is unique. An agent th

Your argument, then, hinges on the fact that a human being can only be in one place at a certain time, thus their experience of the world is unique. An agent that takes in experiences of thousands of people at thousands of places at different times lacks this quality. Naturally such an agent will not have a single opinion about the world. But, is it not better to be able to consider many different viewpoints at the same time? Why do we have freedom of speech and expression, why do we learn other languages, if not to be able to hear other people's points of view about the world, even though we may not have had the particular unique experiences that shaped them? Isn't being able to take a broader perspective and being able to argue for any side of a debate regardless of personal preferences, a sign of greater intelligence in humans? Then why an AI that thinks entirely in this way should not be considered at least somewhat intelligent?

tsimionescu 4y ago
This is not about seeing all view points: it is acting on all of them, to the extent it could act. If you enabled the table-AI with the ability to act in the world, it would directly fight against itself, and ignore itself, and everything in between, as it is doing everything possible. It would be Hitler and Churchill, Noam Chomsky and Dick Cheney, Jesus Christ and the Buddha, and everything in between. Or, more to the point: the concept simply doesn't make sense, and it is definitely not an intelligence.
- skjoldr 4y ago
  Setting up the goal structure for an AI is a very difficult topic indeed, from the safety standpoint. We already fight against ourselves. This is why psychotherapy exists, to help us resolve internal conflicts and set our own goals. Often these conflicts arise because we adopt the viewpoints of our parents or other authority figures and can't let go of them later in life. A neurotic AI is certainly an amusing possibility.
- vaidhy 4y ago
  This sounds suspiciously human to me. I fight and ignore myself all the time.. I am a collection of all the thoughts and almost of them do not even originate in me. I regurgitate content from the books, videos, random conversations with unknown strangers (like this one) all the time. I am hitler, churchill, buddha and christ all rolled into one. Am I intelligent?
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    You have written this comment, presumably hoping to elicit some kind of response. The AI described here would, by definition, be exactly equally as likely to have written the same comment, or the opposite, or to have veered of into a philosophy debate, or any of an infinity of other possible intelligent answers - this is by definition, this is the thought experiment we are discussing. An AI that literally looks up the conversation so far and then flips a coin to choose one of the responses in the table. I would bet that is extremely different from how you act. I would bet for example that you would be more likely to eat something than to allow yourself to starve for the sake of ethics. This AI would be as likely to do both. So, I do think that you are clearly intelligent and sentient despite holding some opposing views, while the thought experiment AI is not.

tsimionescu 4y ago

This is not about seeing all view points: it is acting on all of them, to the extent it could act. If you enabled the table-AI with the ability to act in the world, it would directly fight against itself, and ignore itself, and everything in between, as it is doing everything possible. It would be Hitler and Churchill, Noam Chomsky and Dick Cheney, Jesus Christ and the Buddha, and everything in between. Or, more to the point: the concept simply doesn't make sense, and it is definitely not an intelligence.

skjoldr 4y ago
Setting up the goal structure for an AI is a very difficult topic indeed, from the safety standpoint. We already fight against ourselves. This is why psychotherapy exists, to help us resolve internal conflicts and set our own goals. Often these conflicts arise because we adopt the viewpoints of our parents or other authority figures and can't let go of them later in life. A neurotic AI is certainly an amusing possibility.
vaidhy 4y ago
This sounds suspiciously human to me. I fight and ignore myself all the time.. I am a collection of all the thoughts and almost of them do not even originate in me. I regurgitate content from the books, videos, random conversations with unknown strangers (like this one) all the time. I am hitler, churchill, buddha and christ all rolled into one. Am I intelligent?
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  You have written this comment, presumably hoping to elicit some kind of response. The AI described here would, by definition, be exactly equally as likely to have written the same comment, or the opposite, or to have veered of into a philosophy debate, or any of an infinity of other possible intelligent answers - this is by definition, this is the thought experiment we are discussing. An AI that literally looks up the conversation so far and then flips a coin to choose one of the responses in the table. I would bet that is extremely different from how you act. I would bet for example that you would be more likely to eat something than to allow yourself to starve for the sake of ethics. This AI would be as likely to do both. So, I do think that you are clearly intelligent and sentient despite holding some opposing views, while the thought experiment AI is not.