3 ms·
Agreed. We should be asking what the machines measurably can or can't do. If it can't be measured, then it doesn't matter from an engineering standpoint. Do
by mikkupikku 7mo ago
Agreed. We should be asking what the machines measurably can or can't do. If it can't be measured, then it doesn't matter from an engineering standpoint. Does it have a soul? Can't measure it, so it doesn't matter.
- eru 7mo agoThat's a bit too pessimistic. Often times you can productively find some measurable proxy for the thing you care about but can't measure. Turing's test is a famous example, of that. Sometimes you only have a one-sided proxy. Eg I can't tell you whether Claude has a soul, but I'm fairly sure my dishwasher ain't.
- thangalin 7mo agoClaude has neither a soul nor a warbleflupper.
- hnfong 7mo ago> Turing's test is a famous example Ironically, the Turing test is the OG functionalist approach. The GP's comment basically sums up with the Turing test was designed for.
- eru 7mo agoYes, but I interpret Turing's paper not as saying "souls don't matter", but as "here's a good proxy that we can actually measure". (I don't know what Turing's opinion on souls is, and it doesn't matter for that paper!)
- hnfong 7mo agoI think it's generally accepted that Turing thinks soul doesn't matter when we try to determine whether things have intelligence/ability to think.
- mikkupikku 7mo agoWhen push came to shove, it turns out nobody really cared about the Turing test and immediately found excuses to discount it as soon as machines blew through that goalpost. It's fundamentally theological, but the thing is, it doesn't matter. It has no impact on what the machines can demonstrably do.