4 ms·
I agree there are issues with the UAT, but I feel like my conclusion is still valid: a neural net, given the memories and senses that a humans has, is capable o
by hatthew 2y ago
I agree there are issues with the UAT, but I feel like my conclusion is still valid: a neural net, given the memories and senses that a humans has, is capable of approximating a human's response accurately enough to be indistinguishable from another human, at least to another human.
I philosophically reject the notion that consciousness is an important factor here. The question of whether or not you have a consciousness doesn't affect what I take away from this conversation, and similarly the question of whether an AI has a consciousness doesn't affect what I take away from my actions with it. If the (non-)existence of others' consciousnesses doesn't materially affect my life—and we assume that it's a fundamentally unanswerable question—why should I care other than curiosity?
- suddenlybananas 2y ago>a neural net, given the memories and senses that a humans has, is capable of approximating a human's response accurately enough to be indistinguishable from another human, at least to another human. That doesn't remotely follow from the UAT and is also almost certainly false.
- hatthew 2y agoI am not saying that follows from the formal UAT, I'm saying that in general, if we assume that the human brain is simply producing outputs in response to inputs, I have no reason to believe that a neural net couldn't be constructed to approximate the same outputs given the same inputs. And specifically, the threshold of "good enough approximation" I chose is effectively just a stronger form of the turing test. AI has arguably already passed a weaker form of the turing test (most people in the world cannot tell the difference between a human-written and an AI-written article, for example).