3 ms·

I am not well-read enough to opine on your reaction Re: Wittgenstein, esp. since I haven't read Sacks' work. But you are the first person I've encountered who a

I am not well-read enough to opine on your reaction Re: Wittgenstein, esp. since I haven't read Sacks' work. But you are the first person I've encountered who appears to have an internalized understanding of these ideas, and so am curious to continue the conversation: > So sacks also concludes that we need other humans to acquire language (really, to become human in general) I do agree with Sacks' conclusion, having first come across a version of it in Hegel's dialectic--the dialectic of self vs. other. Or in my interpretation, of personhood and relationship. i.e. Personhood is forged through relationships with other persons. Do you think this applies to AGI? That it needs to bootstrap itself by communicating and relating with other intelligences? This, and related concepts like free will, tend to be ignored in the scientific literature on the subject[1]. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08708 https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08708 Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness

vanderZwan 3y ago
> Do you think this applies to AGI? That it needs to bootstrap itself by communicating and relating with other intelligences? This, and related concepts like free will, tend to be ignored in the scientific literature on the subject[1]. That sounds plausible. On the other hand, it might be another case our tendency to judge intelligence by the already existing intelligence that we know of, which is us. But we probably shouldn't assume that that is the only form of "intelligence" that exists. Related to that: these types of discussion tend to get rather fuzzy because most of the words involved ("intelligence" especially) aren't nearly as neatly defined as our gut feeling tends to make us believe. And depending on which interpretation people pick they can wildly talk past each other, or even confuse themselves by not realizing they're switching between which aspect of intelligence they're talking about in the middle of their argument without realizing it. Which is precisely why I don't really feel the urge to go deeper into what might be needed for AGI right now though, apologies. I think we maybe should put a bit more effort into understanding humans first.
- dsubburam 3y ago
  I find that a reasonable take, and also get your sentiment Re: AGI discussion; though I think we managed a good exchange. Cheers!

vanderZwan 3y ago

> Do you think this applies to AGI? That it needs to bootstrap itself by communicating and relating with other intelligences? This, and related concepts like free will, tend to be ignored in the scientific literature on the subject[1]. That sounds plausible. On the other hand, it might be another case our tendency to judge intelligence by the already existing intelligence that we know of, which is us. But we probably shouldn't assume that that is the only form of "intelligence" that exists. Related to that: these types of discussion tend to get rather fuzzy because most of the words involved ("intelligence" especially) aren't nearly as neatly defined as our gut feeling tends to make us believe. And depending on which interpretation people pick they can wildly talk past each other, or even confuse themselves by not realizing they're switching between which aspect of intelligence they're talking about in the middle of their argument without realizing it. Which is precisely why I don't really feel the urge to go deeper into what might be needed for AGI right now though, apologies. I think we maybe should put a bit more effort into understanding humans first.

dsubburam 3y ago
I find that a reasonable take, and also get your sentiment Re: AGI discussion; though I think we managed a good exchange. Cheers!