3 ms·

> The Church–Turing thesis directly says that computers can do anything humans can, and it's pretty well accepted. Huh? It doesn't say anything close to that.

by chubot 12y ago

> The Church–Turing thesis directly says that computers can do anything humans can, and it's pretty well accepted. Huh? It doesn't say anything close to that. That wouldn't even be mathematics. > Physical laws, as far as we can tell, are Turing computable. Not true either. Where are you getting this idea? I accept the materialistic thesis. I think people are conflating this thesis and the statement of whether human thought can be simulated on computers. That doesn't follow. A computer and the universe are not the same thing. They work in different ways and have different laws. > Why couldn't they? Why couldn't an AI convince someone to do what they want? I'm not saying they couldn't in principle. I'm not even rejecting strong AI in principle. I'm saying that in practice, with the current state of technology and reasonable extrapolation of it, this possibility is beyond consideration. There isn't a credible technical path from specialized AI to strong AI -- where we would be "surprised" that we developed it, and it would all of the sudden take over the world. If we are close technologically to strong AI, we'll know it. The alternative would be like "accidentally" creating an atom bomb, without the Manhattan project (to borrow an example from Bostrom). > Do you say we shouldn't worry about climate change because it's in the future? We absolutely should worry about climate change because we have lots of evidence that it's happening, and will continue to happen. That isn't the case with strong AI. What this article, and other AI practitioners, are saying is: The idea that computers could overthrow us all of the sudden is based on a technological misunderstanding. FWIW in college I was very interested AI: reading Kurzweil's books, considering myself a futurist, etc. I now work at Google in the same department as Kurzweil, Deep Mind, Quantum Computing, etc. Though I don't work in AI per se, and I'm not an expert in it, I'm very excited about specialized AI (which is here), and also the possibility of strong AI. I say that even though strong AI hasn't been proved to be possible in principle: we may need a different mode of computation, in addition to multiple other algorithmic / scientific breakthroughs. I'm saying that we don't have to worry yet. There are more important things to worry about, which relate directly to computing and specialized AI. Your arguments are not precise, and you have the burden of proof.

ikeboy 12y ago
I just looked over the Wikipedia on the Church Turing thesis and digital physics, and I still think that's right. The thesis says that a computer can compute anything a human can. You're right that it can't be proven, because "what a human can do" isn't formalized, but it still has almost universal acceptance. (The "strong" version does not have as much acceptance.) As for the universe being Turing computable, I think a strong argument can be made that it is (all known fundamental laws are computable by a probabilistic TM as far as I know), but even if it isn't, whatever force and law violates Turing computableness should be useble by a machine. If some kind of halting oracle exists in human minds, and humans are not unique (per materialistic thesis), then we should be able to put that oracle into a computer. On timelines: the argument I've seen is that it takes a long time to solve problems this difficult, so we need to start working on safety well in advance of Strong AI being made. I'll get to your other points later.
- chubot 12y ago
  I think I have to be harsh to get my point across: what you are saying is nonsense. I will use this as one example, but you are equally confused on a number of issues, to the point where the conversation isn't productive. I thought you were asking honest questions to learn something, but you appear to have some preconceived notions which you will hold onto in face of contradictory evidence. I said: "Computers, minds, and the universe are different things that work by different laws". You said: "The Church–Turing thesis directly says that computers can do anything humans can" It absolutely doesn't say that. Nor does the Wikpedia article say that it does. Wikipedia says: "In simple terms, the Church–Turing thesis states that a function on the natural numbers is computable in an informal sense (i.e., computable by a human being using a pencil-and-paper method, ignoring resource limitations) if and only if it is computable by a Turing machine." Maybe you are confused by the mention of human beings in that sentence. That is irrelevant -- it would only be relevant if doing calculations on pencil and paper are the ONLY things that humans can do. Of course humans can do lots of other things, like make movies and do their taxes. If you want to philosophise, that's OK. If you want to talk about mathematics, you can't "think it's right". Your opinion doesn't matter. You are confusing philosophy and mathematics. And you are not doing Wikipedia justice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Philosophical_implications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Ph... It's accurate in saying whether the universe can be simulated by a computer is an open question. That's what I'm saying. I'm not denying it. I'm saying you cannot assume it's true to make FURTHER philosophical arguments, and then expect me not to object! You would be basing your argument on false premises. I guess it could be worse -- you could base entire 300 page books on false premises. I think it's good to be honestly interested and excited about these subjects, but it's clear you have a lot to learn. Sorry to be harsh, but I would like to direct your interest to better sources. You seem to be learning from sources that doesn't understand the primary material themselves. Even Wikipedia is an OK source, and quite accurate in this case, but you are not reading it correctly.

by chubot 12y ago

ikeboy 12y ago

I just looked over the Wikipedia on the Church Turing thesis and digital physics, and I still think that's right. The thesis says that a computer can compute anything a human can. You're right that it can't be proven, because "what a human can do" isn't formalized, but it still has almost universal acceptance. (The "strong" version does not have as much acceptance.) As for the universe being Turing computable, I think a strong argument can be made that it is (all known fundamental laws are computable by a probabilistic TM as far as I know), but even if it isn't, whatever force and law violates Turing computableness should be useble by a machine. If some kind of halting oracle exists in human minds, and humans are not unique (per materialistic thesis), then we should be able to put that oracle into a computer. On timelines: the argument I've seen is that it takes a long time to solve problems this difficult, so we need to start working on safety well in advance of Strong AI being made. I'll get to your other points later.

chubot 12y ago
I think I have to be harsh to get my point across: what you are saying is nonsense. I will use this as one example, but you are equally confused on a number of issues, to the point where the conversation isn't productive. I thought you were asking honest questions to learn something, but you appear to have some preconceived notions which you will hold onto in face of contradictory evidence. I said: "Computers, minds, and the universe are different things that work by different laws". You said: "The Church–Turing thesis directly says that computers can do anything humans can" It absolutely doesn't say that. Nor does the Wikpedia article say that it does. Wikipedia says: "In simple terms, the Church–Turing thesis states that a function on the natural numbers is computable in an informal sense (i.e., computable by a human being using a pencil-and-paper method, ignoring resource limitations) if and only if it is computable by a Turing machine." Maybe you are confused by the mention of human beings in that sentence. That is irrelevant -- it would only be relevant if doing calculations on pencil and paper are the ONLY things that humans can do. Of course humans can do lots of other things, like make movies and do their taxes. If you want to philosophise, that's OK. If you want to talk about mathematics, you can't "think it's right". Your opinion doesn't matter. You are confusing philosophy and mathematics. And you are not doing Wikipedia justice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Philosophical_implications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis#Ph... It's accurate in saying whether the universe can be simulated by a computer is an open question. That's what I'm saying. I'm not denying it. I'm saying you cannot assume it's true to make FURTHER philosophical arguments, and then expect me not to object! You would be basing your argument on false premises. I guess it could be worse -- you could base entire 300 page books on false premises. I think it's good to be honestly interested and excited about these subjects, but it's clear you have a lot to learn. Sorry to be harsh, but I would like to direct your interest to better sources. You seem to be learning from sources that doesn't understand the primary material themselves. Even Wikipedia is an OK source, and quite accurate in this case, but you are not reading it correctly.