4 ms·

> That's an argument for why we _shouldn't_ build them. But not an argument for why we _can't_ build them. Do you see the difference? This is a straw man falla

> That's an argument for why we _shouldn't_ build them. But not an argument for why we _can't_ build them. Do you see the difference? This is a straw man fallacy, because I was asked "What's your objection to "conscious" machines?", and my objection is that it is cruel. > Evolution didn't 'know' about conscious either. The pioneers of the Industrial Revolution had only the faintest ideas about thermodynamics, yet managed to build working steam engines. (And we improved them over time, as we learned more.) This is also a fallacious argument. Just because we don't know how evolution created consciousness doesn't mean that we can use our ignorance of how consciousness evolved to create machine consciousness. If you're only using this as evidence that consciousness is possible, the fallacy is begging the question, petitio principii. Also, I believe there is here equivocation and conflation of artificial intelligence with natural intelligence. If we have the time, we can spend 600M years to evolve consciousness directly, but then it would not be artificial, it would not be machine intelligence, it would be natural or biological intelligence, and it would be a massive waste of time because it is already here and we are it. > For the 'Chinese Room' see eg https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec4.html https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec4.html or just have a look at good old Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room Do you really expect me to argue against your citations when you're too lazy even to summarize any particular counter-argument? It has been said that most of the work done in AI has been in trying to prove John Searle wrong, which suggests his argument is significant. A Turing Test does not prove consciousness nor even intelligence. All it proves is whether a human can be fooled. Arguments suggesting emergent properties between a human and a rule book are patently ridiculous, absurd on their face, because learning a book could not possibly ever make a book conscious. Where the Chinese Room thought experiment breaks down is there is a human involved, and most counter-arguments get tripped up here forgetting that it is metaphor and there is no human inside a computer where these types of counter-arguments would ever come true: no matter how much machine learning you submit your program to, there is no mind to begin with that could ever become aware. > Though I'm not sure why you brought up consciousness in the first place. It's irrelevant for the Fermi Paradox. In fact, I did not, the OP of the tread asserted: "Seems pretty clear that we're on a path to machine intelligence," and I responded to that specifically and argued against the possibility.

eru 4y ago
> "Seems pretty clear that we're on a path to machine intelligence," and I responded to that specifically and argued against the possibility. OK, you want to argue both against the _should_ and the _could_, I guess? About the Chinese Room: sure I can replay the standard arguments, if you want me to. But if you already reject the validity of the Turing test, there's not much to discuss on that front, I guess. How do you know that you aren't the only conscious being in existence? How do you know whether other commenters on HN are conscious? > It has been said that most of the work done in AI has been in trying to prove John Searle wrong, which suggests his argument is significant. Who said that? Lots of other things have been said, too. That doesn't suggest anything. > Where the Chinese Room thought experiment breaks down is there is a human involved, and most counter-arguments get tripped up here forgetting that it is metaphor and there is no human inside a computer where these types of counter-arguments would ever come true: no matter how much machine learning you submit your program to, there is no mind to begin with that could ever become aware. Aren't you assuming what you want to prove here? Btw, would your argument still apply in this form?: > [...] there is a human involved, and most counter-arguments get tripped up here forgetting that it is metaphor and there is no human inside a [brain] where these types of counter-arguments would ever come true: no matter how much [of anything] you submit [a brain] to, there is no mind to begin with that could ever become aware.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > OK, you want to argue both against the _should_ and the _could_, I guess? OK...? Strong AI is not possible for reasons given. Strong AI, if possible, is slavery, thus unethical. > About the Chinese Room: sure I can replay the standard arguments, if you want me to. But if you already reject the validity of the Turing test, there's not much to discuss on that front, I guess. Straw man, I have not rejected the validity of the Turing test, merely making the observation that a program passing a Turing test is merely fooling a human into uncertainty whether they are interacting with a human or a program. The Turing test itself is not proof of consciousness, it is only proof of a human being fooled. > How do you know that you aren't the only conscious being in existence? How do you know whether other commenters on HN are conscious? Solipsism and problem of other minds, and as such, a trap. Knock yourself out: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ > Aren't you assuming what you want to prove here? Nope. > Btw, would your argument still apply in this form?: > [...] there is a human involved, and most counter-arguments get tripped up here forgetting that it is metaphor and there is no human inside a [brain] where these types of counter-arguments would ever come true: no matter how much [of anything] you submit [a brain] to, there is no mind to begin with that could ever become aware. No, this is building a straw man and sounds a lot like homunculus theory.

eru 4y ago

> "Seems pretty clear that we're on a path to machine intelligence," and I responded to that specifically and argued against the possibility. OK, you want to argue both against the _should_ and the _could_, I guess? About the Chinese Room: sure I can replay the standard arguments, if you want me to. But if you already reject the validity of the Turing test, there's not much to discuss on that front, I guess. How do you know that you aren't the only conscious being in existence? How do you know whether other commenters on HN are conscious? > It has been said that most of the work done in AI has been in trying to prove John Searle wrong, which suggests his argument is significant. Who said that? Lots of other things have been said, too. That doesn't suggest anything. > Where the Chinese Room thought experiment breaks down is there is a human involved, and most counter-arguments get tripped up here forgetting that it is metaphor and there is no human inside a computer where these types of counter-arguments would ever come true: no matter how much machine learning you submit your program to, there is no mind to begin with that could ever become aware. Aren't you assuming what you want to prove here? Btw, would your argument still apply in this form?: > [...] there is a human involved, and most counter-arguments get tripped up here forgetting that it is metaphor and there is no human inside a [brain] where these types of counter-arguments would ever come true: no matter how much [of anything] you submit [a brain] to, there is no mind to begin with that could ever become aware.

Maursault 4y ago
> OK, you want to argue both against the _should_ and the _could_, I guess? OK...? Strong AI is not possible for reasons given. Strong AI, if possible, is slavery, thus unethical. > About the Chinese Room: sure I can replay the standard arguments, if you want me to. But if you already reject the validity of the Turing test, there's not much to discuss on that front, I guess. Straw man, I have not rejected the validity of the Turing test, merely making the observation that a program passing a Turing test is merely fooling a human into uncertainty whether they are interacting with a human or a program. The Turing test itself is not proof of consciousness, it is only proof of a human being fooled. > How do you know that you aren't the only conscious being in existence? How do you know whether other commenters on HN are conscious? Solipsism and problem of other minds, and as such, a trap. Knock yourself out: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ > Aren't you assuming what you want to prove here? Nope. > Btw, would your argument still apply in this form?: > [...] there is a human involved, and most counter-arguments get tripped up here forgetting that it is metaphor and there is no human inside a [brain] where these types of counter-arguments would ever come true: no matter how much [of anything] you submit [a brain] to, there is no mind to begin with that could ever become aware. No, this is building a straw man and sounds a lot like homunculus theory.