4 ms·

I think it's possible that human thought can't be simulated on a computer. It's far from obvious that it can, and this point needs justification. A lot of peo

by chubot 12y ago

I think it's possible that human thought can't be simulated on a computer. It's far from obvious that it can, and this point needs justification. A lot of people are taking this for granted in their philosophical arguments. Computers can only run Turing complete programs. Human intelligence follows the physical laws of the universe (the mechanism being unknown). Those two substrates are different things; hence it's possible that humans can do things computers can't. Or at least the burden of proof is on the person who posits that they are equivalent. The converse is not true: humans brains can do everything computers can, in theory and in practice. In theory we because we can compute with ours brains -- though very slowly -- and in practice because we program and control computers. We have the facility to use computers to achieve our goals, but AI algorithms don't use us to achieve their goals, to the extent that they have goals. For a concrete task: consider producing a movie that will win an Oscar. In theory this is possible: the Godfather has a very limited number of bits, all of which can fit on a single computer many times over. The bits could just be manufactured it out of thin air. In practice I suspect a computer would need physical agency in the world to create such a movie. It would need the ability to negotiate with Hollywood producers to raise funding; to make creative decisions to direct people who operate cameras, microphones, lighting, etc. Computers don't yet have physical agency, and I suspect they won't for quite some time, for both technological and non-technological reasons. About simulating the universe: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk I think this is too stupid to talk about, but it came up on Hacker News, and Yudkowsky is also referenced many times in Bostrom's "Superintelligence". It is an argument about AI that is predicated on it being possible to simulate the universe on a computer. It's almost unbelievable how this is just thrown in there and taken for granted, without justification. I don't think strong AI is too stupid to talk about, but I believe the burden of proof is on the doomsayers, and I haven't seen arguments that don't rely on misguided and imprecise extrapolation. And I read the book "Superintelligence" to try to understand the arguments better, since people I respect like Musk and Hawking were talking about it. As I said, practically speaking, we should be focusing on the bazillions of problems that computing and the special AI that is already here present. In the 50 year time frame, the planet could be destroyed or the population could be decimated for many other reasons.

ikeboy 12y ago
>I think it's possible that human thought can't be simulated on a computer. It's far from obvious that it can, and this point needs justification. Fair enough. >Computers can only run Turing complete programs. Human intelligence follows the physical laws of the universe (the mechanism being unknown). Those two substrates are different things; hence it's possible that humans can do things computers can't. Or at least the burden of proof is on the person who posits that they are equivalent. The Church–Turing thesis directly says that computers can do anything humans can, and it's pretty well accepted. Physical laws, as far as we can tell, are Turing computable. I think once you accept the materialistic thesis you should agree that computers can in theory simulate humans, and I'm not really too interested in the opinion on this of anyone who rejects the materialistic thesis. (Penrose has tried to argue that computation depends on QM, but I think he's been largely disproven.) >We have the facility to use computers to achieve our goals, but AI algorithms don't use us to achieve their goals, to the extent that they have goals. Why couldn't they? Why couldn't an AI convince someone to do what they want? >For a concrete task: consider producing a movie that will win an Oscar. In theory this is possible: the Godfather has a very limited number of bits, all of which can fit on a single computer many times over. The bits could just be manufactured it out of thin air. >In practice I suspect a computer would need physical agency in the world to create such a movie. It would need the ability to negotiate with Hollywood producers to raise funding; to make creative decisions to direct people who operate cameras, microphones, lighting, etc. Assuming it had access to an internet dump, it could download thousands of existing movies, determine what characteristics are likely to win Oscars, and generate voice and picture based on previous videos. Voice can definitely be generated using information already online, and video should be possible to patch together from existing movies and pictures. >Computers don't yet have physical agency, and I suspect they won't for quite some time, for both technological and non-technological reasons. See http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/07/no-physical-substrate-no-problem/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/07/no-physical-substrate-n.... About Roko's basilisk: Yudkowsky does not take the idea seriously. See https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2cm2eg/rokos_basilisk/cjjbqqo https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2cm2eg/rokos_ba... and https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/2myg86/xkcd_1450_aibox_experiment/cm8vn6e https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/2myg86/xkcd_1450_aibo.... >As I said, practically speaking, we should be focusing on the bazillions of problems that computing and the special AI that is already here present. In the 50 year time frame, the planet could be destroyed or the population could be decimated for many other reasons. Do you say we shouldn't worry about climate change because it's in the future?

by chubot 12y ago

ikeboy 12y ago

>I think it's possible that human thought can't be simulated on a computer. It's far from obvious that it can, and this point needs justification. Fair enough. >Computers can only run Turing complete programs. Human intelligence follows the physical laws of the universe (the mechanism being unknown). Those two substrates are different things; hence it's possible that humans can do things computers can't. Or at least the burden of proof is on the person who posits that they are equivalent. The Church–Turing thesis directly says that computers can do anything humans can, and it's pretty well accepted. Physical laws, as far as we can tell, are Turing computable. I think once you accept the materialistic thesis you should agree that computers can in theory simulate humans, and I'm not really too interested in the opinion on this of anyone who rejects the materialistic thesis. (Penrose has tried to argue that computation depends on QM, but I think he's been largely disproven.) >We have the facility to use computers to achieve our goals, but AI algorithms don't use us to achieve their goals, to the extent that they have goals. Why couldn't they? Why couldn't an AI convince someone to do what they want? >For a concrete task: consider producing a movie that will win an Oscar. In theory this is possible: the Godfather has a very limited number of bits, all of which can fit on a single computer many times over. The bits could just be manufactured it out of thin air. >In practice I suspect a computer would need physical agency in the world to create such a movie. It would need the ability to negotiate with Hollywood producers to raise funding; to make creative decisions to direct people who operate cameras, microphones, lighting, etc. Assuming it had access to an internet dump, it could download thousands of existing movies, determine what characteristics are likely to win Oscars, and generate voice and picture based on previous videos. Voice can definitely be generated using information already online, and video should be possible to patch together from existing movies and pictures. >Computers don't yet have physical agency, and I suspect they won't for quite some time, for both technological and non-technological reasons. See http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/07/no-physical-substrate-no-problem/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/04/07/no-physical-substrate-n.... About Roko's basilisk: Yudkowsky does not take the idea seriously. See https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2cm2eg/rokos_basilisk/cjjbqqo https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2cm2eg/rokos_ba... and https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/2myg86/xkcd_1450_aibox_experiment/cm8vn6e https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/2myg86/xkcd_1450_aibo.... >As I said, practically speaking, we should be focusing on the bazillions of problems that computing and the special AI that is already here present. In the 50 year time frame, the planet could be destroyed or the population could be decimated for many other reasons. Do you say we shouldn't worry about climate change because it's in the future?