3 ms·

> Penrose Penrose is great but resting your argument on his work is dubious. I would go for a portfolio approach when thinking about these things. > Proof by

> Penrose Penrose is great but resting your argument on his work is dubious. I would go for a portfolio approach when thinking about these things. > Proof by assertion re physics & intelligence Physics does indeed tell us that intelligence is possible, inasmuch as we are intelligent. Unless you are claiming that you are not a materialist? > More proof by assertion The GP is just asserting that 'a lot can happen over a few orders of magnitude', they aren't trying to proove anything. It seems like you are making your 'proof by assertion' rebuttal do a lot of work for you, without making and strong claims yourself other than 'GP didn't give good reasons why AGI will be a thing'. Maybe GP didn't give satisfying reasons, but if you know so much about this stuff it would probably be a worthwhile thought experiment for you to attempt to steelman the Strong AI position instead of shouting it down.

Maursault 4y ago
> Penrose is great but resting your argument on his work is dubious. As I was not resting my argument on his work, this is a straw man. I merely used Penrose as one of two examples to counter GGP's unsupported assertion. > Physics does indeed tell us that intelligence is possible, inasmuch as we are intelligent. Unless you are claiming that you are not a materialist? Physics does not tell us that strong artificial intelligence is possible in the way the GGP attempted to prove with invalid argument. > The GP is just asserting that 'a lot can happen over a few orders of magnitude', they aren't trying to proove anything. The use of words such as "thus," and "therefore" really gives it away that is precisely what they were attempting. > It seems like you are making your 'proof by assertion' rebuttal do a lot of work for you, without making and strong claims yourself other than 'GP didn't give good reasons why AGI will be a thing'. I am not required to entertain fallacious argument, and yet, generously, I identified the type of fallacy. > Maybe GP didn't give satisfying reasons, but if you know so much about this stuff it would probably be a worthwhile thought experiment for you to attempt to steelman the Strong AI position instead of shouting it down. Maybe I will. I just might do that.

Maursault 4y ago

> Penrose is great but resting your argument on his work is dubious. As I was not resting my argument on his work, this is a straw man. I merely used Penrose as one of two examples to counter GGP's unsupported assertion. > Physics does indeed tell us that intelligence is possible, inasmuch as we are intelligent. Unless you are claiming that you are not a materialist? Physics does not tell us that strong artificial intelligence is possible in the way the GGP attempted to prove with invalid argument. > The GP is just asserting that 'a lot can happen over a few orders of magnitude', they aren't trying to proove anything. The use of words such as "thus," and "therefore" really gives it away that is precisely what they were attempting. > It seems like you are making your 'proof by assertion' rebuttal do a lot of work for you, without making and strong claims yourself other than 'GP didn't give good reasons why AGI will be a thing'. I am not required to entertain fallacious argument, and yet, generously, I identified the type of fallacy. > Maybe GP didn't give satisfying reasons, but if you know so much about this stuff it would probably be a worthwhile thought experiment for you to attempt to steelman the Strong AI position instead of shouting it down. Maybe I will. I just might do that.