Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

damn! jaron's really conceited. even more annoying and pointless than his stuff on Edge. i don't really care about AI and he makes me care even less:)

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

I'm surprised by how well received this diavlog was. I found it to be very pretentious and going nowhere!

I don't even feel this was appropriate for the Science Saturday slot. There wasn't much of what I would consider science, but instead a whole lot of philosophy.

My summary of this diavlog is as follows...
Jaron: Eschew (this) philosophizing.
Eliezer: No.

I guess I'm in the minority here; I totally agree with Jaron. But I have almost no appreciation of philosophy anyway, hehe.

If Jaron is ever to be convinced to come back to bh.tv, I think he should be paired up with someone with the purpose of diving into developing capabilities, and not get bogged down in how it relates to intelligence or human-ness.

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

For two guys who know EXACTLY what they are talking about, that was the WORST POSSIBLE introduction to the concept Zombies for the uninitiated.

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

Lanier does some of the exact evasions that so irritate the Dennett-minded. He makes a big deal of saying that he has consciousness and accuses Yudofsky of denying his. But he is palpably hostile to any attempt to explain it. He says we must remain "humble" and not be curious about the concept, or at least not too actively curious. He also repeats his claim to be doing the "real" AI work -- ie the recreation of specific brain functions -- that obviously do not get to the level of full-brain consciousness, and derides attempts to model consciousness as ideology. He seems to be the one contending with a limiting ideology.

If it is the case that some general-AI-minded programmers made some bad decisions in the past, and those mistakes were carried down, it still doesn't render the entire field of computer modeling of human consciousness a pernicious ideology. That is what animates people like Yudofsky. It's fantastic that Lanier has done such great work on the visual cortex; it probably is more productive to the world. But what is it that bothers him so much about the interest that Yudofsky et al are pursuing?

These two are probably not the best suited to discuss these matters. They really have completely different goals in life.

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

I understood Lanier to be playing a Socratic game, challenging Yudkowsky on some of his assumptions, about which Lanier obviously thinks there ought to be more consideration. I hear also hear Lanier arguing that the goals of AI research ought to be rethought, because the terms in which they're defined themselves need to be reconsidered.

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

If that is what he believes i wish he would have said that. If he was arguing for no AI right now that would have made sense but he seemed to be arguing something stronger and broader and not communicating well. I found it frustrating to try and figure out what he was talking about.

I found it particularly frustrating how he made the strong statement about belief in human beings being a statement of belief and not knowledge then backing away from it. Why?!! It’s an important undecidable necessary defensible arguable belief about what it is to be human and then he seemed to back away from it!! This leaves me totally confused about what he is arguing.

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

That would be great! I want to hear him describe how he modeled computer vision on how the visual cortex works and how he designed a neural chip!

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

As well you should be.

Re: SKY HOOK ALERT!
 

Hmmm, that's the same language that the Discovery Institute uses. Quite telling. There's not much point in arguing with people who espouse "magical thinking."

What an laughable thing to say. Lanier proved himself to be an idiot within the first 10 seconds of this diavlog, and it went downhill from there. Methinks his dreads have grown inward.

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

Yeah, I ended up turning this one off. A Bob/Dennett rematch diavlog on consciousness would be awesome but otherwise, I think there are several episodes of MeaningofLife.tv that cover some of this same ground (the concsciousness stuff, that is) much better.

I felt like I had somehow stumbled into a dormitory where a computer-geek and hippie-philosopher were holding a post-bong rap session.

Re: SKY HOOK ALERT!
 

Lanier's bio. He's been the subject of an awful lot of content-free putdowns here for reasons I can only guess. I think his professional accomplishments tell a story that contradicts that point of view.

Re: SKY HOOK ALERT!
 

Agreed, but this diavlog was nearly as problematic as the criticisms of it. uncle eb put it well in his last sentence. I was disappointed, though I was interested enough to watch the whole thing. I just wished that these guys would have spent less time talking about stuff that isn't at all decidable at the moment. The nature of consciousness, and getting too many levels down into epistemology, are topics that I am not interested in hearing about, as I'm sure you already know. The discussions never seem to go anywhere.

Apologies to the philosophers for my philistinism.

Re: SKY HOOK ALERT!
 

This is one of those cases, I guess, where I'm way out of step with the consensus; but I was glued to this one. I was fascinated by how evenly matched these guys seemed (though I can see that not everybody agrees with that view, either.) To me each of these guys' personalities seems like an answer to the other, and somehow despite or, more probably, because of the friction I thought there was more light than heat.

Re: SKY HOOK ALERT!
 

I agree that they were evenly matched and that their personalities clashed nicely. I also liked both of them, in and of themselves, as they came across on camera. If the topics weren't anathema to me, I would have been raving about this diavlog, I'm sure. I'd like to see them both come back.

Re: SKY HOOK ALERT!
 

To clarify, I'm all for late-night stoner rap sessions, this one just didn't grab me (maybe I'm too wrapped up in election stuff). I'd like to see both guys come back.

Re: Jaron's Circle Speak
 

My thoughts exactly.

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

Interested discussion, and fun to listen to. I agree with Lanier that we should not pretend to know more than we actually know, but it seems that he falls that trap himself by stating that consciousness is "not a machine". How does he know that?

Re: SKY HOOK ALERT!
 

Me, too, but only as a participant.

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

I'm going to name my first child Ebeneezer.

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

Not true: Dawkins substitutes the philosophically extremely meager theory of "memes" for consciousness. The fact that he has so little to say about consciousness is a serious defect in any scientific theory.

True: Pinker and Dennett differ in significant ways, but they are both scientific materialists in their attempts to "explain" consciousness (language in the case of Pinker) by something that lies below consciousness.

Re: Artificial Consciousness: Done
 

Last time I checked, the scientific world could not even define consciousness ...much less how it happens...if it was seperate from the brain, etc. etc....Consciousness-spirit-soul go hand in hand IMHO and that is a part of life which one day science will integrate hopefully...Quantum will lead us there....Hmmmm, is my brain just an organ for consciousness to reside??? When my physical body dies will my consciousness (which is energy) die also?? Can you kill energy or does it just change form??

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

Hmmmmm....metaphysical?? Quantum and metaphysical are getting to be good buddies....What was yesterday metaphysical, today can be scientifically verified....SO don't scoff at metaphysics...

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

No-one knows as of to date...Consciousness is a wide open field that only the brave explore...lol

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

I wasn't scoffing. What I was criticizing was surrepticious metaphysics, i.e. the tendency of philosophers and scientists to use science or pseudo-science to deny the reality of consciousness. The denial of consciousness is is a metaphysical position. It is called, or used to be called, "materialism." More recent philosophers seem to prefer the term "naturalism," no doubt because it sounds more pleasant---like organic food or nudism. I see no reason to deny what I experience every time I open my mouth to say that something is true or false.

I suppose that makes me a Kantian. I really don't understand how some science, whether it be evolutionary biology or AI, can explain (away) the reality of consciousness. The condition of possibility of knowledge (to speak with Kant), and above all the possibility of scientific knowledge, is the existence of the human mind. The very ability to demonstrate that something is true or false (for example, the theory of evolution), real or unreal (for example, numbers or illusions) etc. depends on the existence of mind. This is not a metaphysical claim, simply an acknowledgement of an indisputable fact.

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

I liked Jaron's comparison of the singularity mysticism with the rapture. It seems to be desire that motivates the singularists predictions as well as Jaron's own notions of a soul.

If someone had asked for a definition of consciousness (in the form of a test), much of the debate could have been avoided.