3 ms·

Two things: 1) They may feel like a red herring to you, but they are a big part of what a lot of people are talking about, and coming into a discussion that is

Two things: 1) They may feel like a red herring to you, but they are a big part of what a lot of people are talking about, and coming into a discussion that is clearly talking about whether an AI is conscious or how we could decide if it was and saying "that's all pointless, you shouldn't even be having this discussion" is kind of rude. 2) I am deeply skeptical that it is possible to have anything we could reasonably deem an "AGI" without it demonstrating at least what appears to be consciousness. Certainly, the "singularity" that many people talk about as being either an inevitability or an actual goal seems impossible without an AGI that can self-analyze and self-improve, which seem, at least to me, like they probably require consciousness, at least at the level being talked about.

pessimizer 3y ago
> They may feel like a red herring to you, but they are a big part of what a lot of people are talking about, and coming into a discussion that is clearly talking about whether an AI is conscious or how we could decide if it was and saying "that's all pointless, you shouldn't even be having this discussion" is kind of rude. Don't silence people, answer them. Say why it's actually important. Don't say that by saying "when you say it's not important, you're disrespecting the people who say it's important." That kind of thinking will take us back to the middle ages. > I am deeply skeptical that it is possible to have anything we could reasonably deem an "AGI" without it demonstrating at least what appears to be consciousness. The meaning of the word "AGI" is not an interesting thing to talk about. Call it what you want. If there's a conventional meaning to the word AGI that you're using, explain it and explain why an algorithm that isn't constantly running fails that. If you do this using the word "consciousness," you're passing the buck. You might as well be talking about souls for all the precision that the word "consciousness" has. > seems impossible without an AGI that can self-analyze and self-improve Thought experiment. What if you yourself aren't an AGI that can self-analyze and improve? What if you are two not-AGIs (by your definition): 1) a learner that improves the other based on new information, and 2) a controller that produces output, And that they switch roles between 1 and 30 times per second, based on the intensity of the input. Would that mean you weren't conscious?

pessimizer 3y ago

> They may feel like a red herring to you, but they are a big part of what a lot of people are talking about, and coming into a discussion that is clearly talking about whether an AI is conscious or how we could decide if it was and saying "that's all pointless, you shouldn't even be having this discussion" is kind of rude. Don't silence people, answer them. Say why it's actually important. Don't say that by saying "when you say it's not important, you're disrespecting the people who say it's important." That kind of thinking will take us back to the middle ages. > I am deeply skeptical that it is possible to have anything we could reasonably deem an "AGI" without it demonstrating at least what appears to be consciousness. The meaning of the word "AGI" is not an interesting thing to talk about. Call it what you want. If there's a conventional meaning to the word AGI that you're using, explain it and explain why an algorithm that isn't constantly running fails that. If you do this using the word "consciousness," you're passing the buck. You might as well be talking about souls for all the precision that the word "consciousness" has. > seems impossible without an AGI that can self-analyze and self-improve Thought experiment. What if you yourself aren't an AGI that can self-analyze and improve? What if you are two not-AGIs (by your definition): 1) a learner that improves the other based on new information, and 2) a controller that produces output, And that they switch roles between 1 and 30 times per second, based on the intensity of the input. Would that mean you weren't conscious?