3 ms·
> Personally, I'd say Paul Allen's counter-argument, which I recall as boiling down to the inherent limits of human-produced software, is the most plausible cou
by zmmmmm 14y ago
> Personally, I'd say Paul Allen's counter-argument, which I recall as boiling down to the inherent limits of human-produced software, is the most plausible counter-argument
I often wonder if the ultimate end counter argument may be that the same things that make us "intelligent" are also those that give us our human flaws - exactly the same things that we were trying to avoid in the first place by using computers. Perhaps we can't have human-like intelligence without also being forgetful, inaccurate, selfish, lazy, irrational, greedy, angry, sad etc. If someone did invent a computer with all those attributes, would it be useful?
- Filligree 14y agoMost of those attributes turn out to have perfectly good explanations in evolutionary psychology. That being the case, there's no reason to expect a mind that isn't produced by the same process to possess them.
- zmmmmm 14y ago> there's no reason to expect a mind that isn't produced by the same process to possess them True ... but then will those minds be able to perform the feats of intelligence that we hope for from the "singularity"? Will a mind unable put aside the fact that valves can make a t.v. set run, unable to dream, imagine, love, and lacking the motivation of greed and competition with its peers etc. - will that mind be able to discover the transistor as an alternative? Perhaps our evolutionary psychology is part of the reason we exhibit what intelligence we have, not just an unnecessary relic of our past?
- Filligree 14y ago> Perhaps our evolutionary psychology is part of the reason we exhibit what intelligence we have, not just an unnecessary relic of our past? Dare we take the risk that it isn't?