3 ms·

I watched half of the video. He keeps appealing to the idea that Goedel applies to AI because AI doesn't understand what it's doing. But I seriously doubt that

I watched half of the video. He keeps appealing to the idea that Goedel applies to AI because AI doesn't understand what it's doing. But I seriously doubt that we humans really know what we're doing, either. IIRC, his Goedel argument against AI is that someone could construct a Goedel proposition for an intelligent machine which that machine could reason its way through to hit a contradiction. But, at least by default, humans don't base their epistemology on such reasoning, and I don't see why a conscious machine would either. It's not ideal, but frankly, when most humans hit a contradiction, they usually just ignore whichever side of the contradiction is most inconvenient for them.

enugu 2y ago
The argument does not need to involve typical human behaviour with its faults. Because if a computer can simulate humans, it can also simulate humans with error correction and verification mechanisms. So, the computer should also be able to simulate a process where a group of humans write down initial deductions and then verify it extensively for logical errors using both computers and other humans. Most of the objections have been covered in his book "Shadows of the Mind". Also, the fact that most human behaviour is not about deducing theorems isn't relevant as that is used as a counterexample which attacks the 'computers can simulate humans' hypothesis. This particular behaviour is chosen, as it is easy to make reflective arguments precise.