3 ms·
Even if we grant all of this -- that humans are good "axiom generators", that AIs are not, and that this is important -- it is totally unconvincing because it c
by icambron 2y ago
Even if we grant all of this -- that humans are good "axiom generators", that AIs are not, and that this is important -- it is totally unconvincing because it conflates current AI tech in practice with computers in principle. It's always important to remember that humans aren't made of fundamentally different stuff; we're just very strangely-implemented computers, and that if it's possible for us, it would be astounding if it wasn't, at least in principle, possible for an AI. There's no ethereal module for second-order logic bestowed by the universe only on biological creatures. Whether that's a hard thing to build and why isn't a topic given any space in the article; it's just sort of conclusory.
In fact, in the five years since this article was written, many of the specific supporting details have become questionable, or would now at least need to be more precisely stated and argued. Is AI really so obviously bad at metacognitive thinking? Doesn't seem like it: I bet GPT can generate fresh and interesting axioms given the right prompt about axioms, which is how humans do this kind of thing too. Second-order statements are just...statements, so there's no reason to expect AI to be bad at working with them. And here we're arguing that computers are incapable of this kind of thing in principle?
Just feels like copium for dualists.
- alienicecream 2y ago> It's always important to remember that humans aren't made of fundamentally different stuff; How do you know this?
- jrlocke 2y agoBecause there is no evidence to the contrary?
- alienicecream 2y agoSo? Lack of evidence is not proof positive of the contrary position. Even if you accept that there is no evidence, which is doubtful in itself since the fact that only humans seem to be able to think the way humans think could be considered evidence.
- icambron 2y agoIt's pretty strong evidence! We understand the basics of how humans (or living things in general) are constructed, and in that framework, built out of physics and chemistry, there's no space for special magic stuff; anything biology can make is made of atoms and could in principle be replicated. Even if there's some exotic whatsit we have somehow not been able to detect thus far, something that lives outside of our existing scientific theories, that would simply require updating those theories, and then figuring out how to follow the same steps biological systems do. Thus, the idea that there is some other "non-physical" thing intrinsically inaccessible to us is an extraordinary claim. You similarly have no direct evidence that there isn't a bottle A&W root bear on Europa, but our understanding of the history of humanity (and root beer and space travel) makes it very unlikely. It is reasonable to conclude that there is no such bottle, and wildly unreasonable to posit that there is. Edit: added the word "direct" + minor clarifications
- alienicecream 2y ago> Even if there's some exotic whatsit we have somehow not been able to detect thus far, something that lives outside of our existing scientific theories, that would simply require updating those theories, and then figuring out how to follow the same steps biological systems do. Assuming the whatsit could fit into the materialistic/mechanistic framework. But that's not necessarily the case. > You similarly have no direct evidence that there isn't a bottle A&W root bear on Europa, but our understanding of the history of humanity (and root beer and space travel) makes it very unlikely. I didn't make a claim, I asked you how you can be so sure of your claim.
- marcusverus 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot