4 ms·
First, it has ethical implications, since we wouldn't want certain experiences for conscious beings compared to unconscious algorithms. Second, it is not clear
by proc0 4y ago
First, it has ethical implications, since we wouldn't want certain experiences for conscious beings compared to unconscious algorithms. Second, it is not clear that general intelligence can be achieved *without* consciousness. Our only evidence so far is the human brain, which has consciousness.
For example, the main feature of C is a type of self-awareness, and also existential awareness, both of which contribute to intelligence. An agent that is not good at understanding its own existence could not answer certain type of questions that humans can, therefore it is not a general intelligence yet. It may know all kinds of data, but self-referencing tasks or questions about its place in the world would not be as good as a human's. That said, it is easy to imagine a future where we just have a variety of really smart AI in each domain, and the same results as having AGI are achieved except without needing to emulate the human brain.
- karmakaze 4y agoOnce a machine speaks and acts in manners of consciousness the same ways as a human, then a reasonable conclusion is that consciousness is an emergent property not to be considered prerequisite from other means.
- wruza 4y agocompared to unconscious algorithms This implies that humans are non-algorithmic, which isn’t… clear? Also, neural networks aren’t traditional algorhitms. Their algorithm reduces a static input into a deterministic output, but only as long as there’s no feedback loops or ”livestream” inputs. Pretty sure that if a [quantumly-crude] copy of myself was done few minutes ago, it would post this comment word to word and made same typos. And even if quantum fluctuations made enough difference, can you really tell me or that copy apart from an “algorithm” with a bit flipped in its parameter?