3 ms·

So his argument is "I can't think of how to build AI, and it looks pretty hard so, yeah." At least he admits it is "special" to him. How is that an argument ag

So his argument is "I can't think of how to build AI, and it looks pretty hard so, yeah." At least he admits it is "special" to him. How is that an argument against Kurzweil? So far, we have no real ideas on consciousness. So it seems that until we've at least figured out that, no should should be making flat prohibitions on what we can achieve. (Kurzweil could be wildly off on timelines but that's the most obvious and only real criticism there is right?) Not to mention, as far as we can tell, we are machines. So it takes an extra something to say we can't ever build ourselves. (Let alone figure ourselves out and improve on the design.)

tim333 11y ago
I just listened to his argument against Kurzweil in "Why do AI proponents think machines will one day be like humans?" video. Basically he says Kurzweil with his graphs argues computers will get faster till their computing power is on a par with that of the neurones in the brain but just making computers faster will not make them human like, it will just make them do existing computer stuff faster. Kurzweil however does not argue that - he argues the software will improve as the computers get faster due to lots of people, himself included, working on it.
cristianpascu 11y ago
That was an expression of doubt, or of skepticism, not an argument. However, the very fact that consciousness resisted for so long to scientific explanation is a strong evidence that it, indeed, escapes material explanations. It's the fact that all of science deals with quantitative expressions and measurements, whereas consciousness is qualitative. We don't know what it like to be a bat, me as a man I don't know what is it like to be a woman, nor does my wife know what it is like to be a man, or someone else for that matter. Only for the simple reason that qualitative experiences, in themselves, are subjective and bound to the subject experiencing them. How do we know the electrons don't feel? We don't. Some, like me, presume they don't. Others, in panpsychism, presume they do. At little tiny bit, at least. >> Not to mention, as far as we can tell, we are machines. That is a very strong statement.
scottlocklin 11y ago
Not knowing how to do a thing is a pretty good argument against it actually happening in any short period of time. Since we can't even define consciousness... conscious machines seem pretty speculative. As far as Kurzweil goes as a prophet: how is his track record? Pretty bad as far as I can tell.
- roel_v 11y ago
  "As far as Kurzweil goes as a prophet: how is his track record? Pretty bad as far as I can tell." Actually, it's pretty good, if you consider his predictions from 15 years or so ago and take some liberty in interpretation. I forgot where I read the list that enumerated it, though.
- swombat 11y ago
  86% according to http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/why-ray-kurzweils-predictions-are-right-86-of-the-time http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/why-ray-kurzweils-pre...
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Look, normally I think Kurzweil is full of crap, but: >So far, we have no real ideas on consciousness. Oh really? How long a literature search did you do? Which authors have you read on the subject? Or do you just mean, "We don't have clear-enough ideas about consciousness that we teach them to undergraduate students and give TED Talks about them, because we're still actively researching the matter"?
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Care to point out anything in particular? FFS, we still have (apparently) well-respected philosophers insisting on duality. P-zombies are actually (from what I can tell) debated. So, sure, there's plenty being said and perhaps some not-totally-worthless ideas. But nothing even remotely close to explaining consciousness. Sure, perhaps it's really, really, hard, but lets not pretend we've made any useful progress.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    >FFS, we still have (apparently) well-respected philosophers insisting on duality. P-zombies are actually (from what I can tell) debated. The key word there is apparently. No, you are not made of magic. >So, sure, there's plenty being said and perhaps some not-totally-worthless ideas. But nothing even remotely close to explaining consciousness. Sure, perhaps it's really, really, hard, but lets not pretend we've made any useful progress. Or in other words, you haven't actually looked in any neuroscience or cognitive science journals.

tim333 11y ago

I just listened to his argument against Kurzweil in "Why do AI proponents think machines will one day be like humans?" video. Basically he says Kurzweil with his graphs argues computers will get faster till their computing power is on a par with that of the neurones in the brain but just making computers faster will not make them human like, it will just make them do existing computer stuff faster. Kurzweil however does not argue that - he argues the software will improve as the computers get faster due to lots of people, himself included, working on it.

cristianpascu 11y ago

That was an expression of doubt, or of skepticism, not an argument. However, the very fact that consciousness resisted for so long to scientific explanation is a strong evidence that it, indeed, escapes material explanations. It's the fact that all of science deals with quantitative expressions and measurements, whereas consciousness is qualitative. We don't know what it like to be a bat, me as a man I don't know what is it like to be a woman, nor does my wife know what it is like to be a man, or someone else for that matter. Only for the simple reason that qualitative experiences, in themselves, are subjective and bound to the subject experiencing them. How do we know the electrons don't feel? We don't. Some, like me, presume they don't. Others, in panpsychism, presume they do. At little tiny bit, at least. >> Not to mention, as far as we can tell, we are machines. That is a very strong statement.

scottlocklin 11y ago

Not knowing how to do a thing is a pretty good argument against it actually happening in any short period of time. Since we can't even define consciousness... conscious machines seem pretty speculative. As far as Kurzweil goes as a prophet: how is his track record? Pretty bad as far as I can tell.

roel_v 11y ago
"As far as Kurzweil goes as a prophet: how is his track record? Pretty bad as far as I can tell." Actually, it's pretty good, if you consider his predictions from 15 years or so ago and take some liberty in interpretation. I forgot where I read the list that enumerated it, though.
swombat 11y ago
86% according to http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/why-ray-kurzweils-predictions-are-right-86-of-the-time http://bigthink.com/endless-innovation/why-ray-kurzweils-pre...

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

Look, normally I think Kurzweil is full of crap, but: >So far, we have no real ideas on consciousness. Oh really? How long a literature search did you do? Which authors have you read on the subject? Or do you just mean, "We don't have clear-enough ideas about consciousness that we teach them to undergraduate students and give TED Talks about them, because we're still actively researching the matter"?

MichaelGG 11y ago
Care to point out anything in particular? FFS, we still have (apparently) well-respected philosophers insisting on duality. P-zombies are actually (from what I can tell) debated. So, sure, there's plenty being said and perhaps some not-totally-worthless ideas. But nothing even remotely close to explaining consciousness. Sure, perhaps it's really, really, hard, but lets not pretend we've made any useful progress.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  >FFS, we still have (apparently) well-respected philosophers insisting on duality. P-zombies are actually (from what I can tell) debated. The key word there is apparently. No, you are not made of magic. >So, sure, there's plenty being said and perhaps some not-totally-worthless ideas. But nothing even remotely close to explaining consciousness. Sure, perhaps it's really, really, hard, but lets not pretend we've made any useful progress. Or in other words, you haven't actually looked in any neuroscience or cognitive science journals.