3 ms·
The core dilemma, and I'm paraphrasing I can't remember who, is that for every other problem given to computer scientists to solve, there already exists an unde
by themgt 12y ago
The core dilemma, and I'm paraphrasing I can't remember who, is that for every other problem given to computer scientists to solve, there already exists an understanding of what the problem space is and what a solution is required to do. The computer scientist just architects and implements the solution in software, but they're implementing business logic, or physics equations to guide a spacecraft, or "route this car through the mapped 3d environment and follow these rules and don't hit anything"
But sentience simply is not defined. There are no equations for it, no foundational science modeling it. It's possibly the ultimate unanswered question for all human history, and so the task given to computer engineers is: implement this thing we haven't as a species been able to explain or describe or comprehend for 10,000 years
And really, it's a bit much to ask. The neuroscientists could have a eureka moment tomorrow and finally crack the code of sentience, and once documented I'm confident some form of rudimentary synthetic implementation would be possible within a decade. But I'm not sure many neuroscientists or practically anyone (Tononi/Tegmark/Hawkins/?) are directly attempt to investigate and build theories of consciousness.
That theory of consciousness would be the instruction book for the programmers building the first hard AI.
- aamar 12y agoBut why would sentience or consciousness be necessary for (or even relevant to) a system's utility and/or hazard? Put differently, it seems like what's really relevant is its cognitive ability, model of the world, decision-making skills, and so on, all so-called "easy problems". Despite the designation they're not truly easy problems to investigate; on the other hand, neuroscientists and other researchers are making steady, semi-predictable progress on these questions every year. So what role is left for sentience? Maybe it is the idea that only sentience could cause something to act "on its own", to have "intentions"? To that I would ask if any creature, sentient or otherwise, can be said to act free from its "programming", genetic, cultural, etc. Alternately maybe you think sentience would be necessary for an entity to perform unexpected actions in furtherance of subgoals (a weaker interpretation of "intention"). Or conversely: without sentience, computers can only perform actions which are trivial consequences of the orders they have been given. But, of course, even computers today do all kinds of things "automatically". If I ask for a browser tab to open on my laptop, memory gets freed and allocated, various fans turn on and off, lots more happens that would be very difficult for me to predict (even if I designed the system). Again, sentience seems entirely besides the point.
- me1010 12y ago> the ultimate unanswered question Answer: 42.