4 ms·

I disagree entirely. The author conflates "making technology easier to use" with "making people dumber". He decries the invention of the typewriter because it e

by reso 15y ago

I disagree entirely. The author conflates "making technology easier to use" with "making people dumber". He decries the invention of the typewriter because it ended calligraphy, and the printing press because we no longer have to memorize books. In other words, he is a luddite. He then makes the classic mistake of conflating "intelligence" with "consciousness", completely ignoring Turing's main insight: that consciousness is not testable in human nor machine, and thus, if it acts human, we have no reason to deny it consciousness.

jordanlev 15y ago
I think you misunderstood (or didn't really read) the whole thing. I don't think he's conflating "tech easier" with "people dumber", but rather bringing up an interesting way of thinking about the issue. Also, he isn't conflating intelligence with consciousness -- his whole point about the Turing test is that he thinks people "don't get it" -- that it's not really proving anything (and he uses the logical device of saying "what if the judge of the test is dumb"). Here's the text of slide #80, for example: •The real test is consciousness, not intelligence •An “intelligent” machine is not necessarily conscious •Conversely: a machine does not need to be too intelligent in order to be conscious (many people are not intelligent)
- majmun 15y ago
  The whole presentation is superficial, I think that if we suddenly lobotomize whole population, the man made machines would not suddenly become smarter and more intelligent but physically would stay the same. Yes in some time after hypotetical dumbening of people, the new form of machines would dumben down too (because man would create worse and worse machines.), proving they are not really autonomously intelligent but its intelligence was tied with human intelligence. on 1:1 relation.

4 ms·

I disagree entirely. The author conflates "making technology easier to use" with "making people dumber". He decries the invention of the typewriter because it e

by reso 15y ago

jordanlev 15y ago
I think you misunderstood (or didn't really read) the whole thing. I don't think he's conflating "tech easier" with "people dumber", but rather bringing up an interesting way of thinking about the issue. Also, he isn't conflating intelligence with consciousness -- his whole point about the Turing test is that he thinks people "don't get it" -- that it's not really proving anything (and he uses the logical device of saying "what if the judge of the test is dumb"). Here's the text of slide #80, for example: •The real test is consciousness, not intelligence •An “intelligent” machine is not necessarily conscious •Conversely: a machine does not need to be too intelligent in order to be conscious (many people are not intelligent)
- majmun 15y ago
  The whole presentation is superficial, I think that if we suddenly lobotomize whole population, the man made machines would not suddenly become smarter and more intelligent but physically would stay the same. Yes in some time after hypotetical dumbening of people, the new form of machines would dumben down too (because man would create worse and worse machines.), proving they are not really autonomously intelligent but its intelligence was tied with human intelligence. on 1:1 relation.