3 ms·
It's been a long time since I've read TENM but I don't think Penrose argued that AGI was impossible, just that consciousness was not computable by a Turing mach
by chimprich 2y ago
It's been a long time since I've read TENM but I don't think Penrose argued that AGI was impossible, just that consciousness was not computable by a Turing machine. Presumably you could create AGI by utilising these quantum effects if it turns out that Penrose is correct and they do something.
I wouldn't particularly bet on Penrose being correct but until someone figures out how consciousness actually works or proves that it's somehow a big self-convincing illusion I don't think we can completely discount the idea that there's some kind of physics involved.
- darby_nine 2y ago> I wouldn't particularly bet on Penrose being correct but until someone figures out how consciousness actually works or proves that it's somehow a big self-convincing illusion I don't think we can completely discount the idea that there's some kind of physics involved. Despite my flippant rejection of Penrose I very much agree. I just thought the computational approach was misguided and his colleagues did him dirty.