Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2326)

Bloggingheads 11-01-2008 09:20 AM

Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 

eric 11-01-2008 09:52 AM

IQ Tests point estimates
 
Lanier argues that a three-digit IQ has specious precision, but he doesn't understand statistics. If you are estimating a number with a large standard error, the point estimate is still 'scientific' and 'valid'; those who assume there is no standard error are making a mistake, but the point estimate is still good. To group data by, say, the closest standard deviation would impart bias. What does he propose, that those with IQs from 116-125 be called '120'? That would mean not only do you have standard error from the test, but a standard error from the grouping that would be about as large, compounding the standard error.

hamandcheese 11-01-2008 11:42 AM

Jaron's Circle Speak
 
Jaron irritates me. He talks himself in circles and it seems whenever Eliezer makes a good point contrary to something Jaron has said he either distracts or laughs it off. Ironically, I think Jaron's failings in this discussion come from ideology. He seems transfixed on this idea that Eliezers position is comparable to religion by making these generalized and ultimately inadequate parallels. When his arguments fail he, quite religiously, falls back onto some vague, self-righteous notion that's hard to dispute. When these fail it doesn't phase him to say "well, that's just what I believe." Doesn't he see that he is the truer ideologue?

ginger baker 11-01-2008 12:01 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
jaron lanier!!!! coool! BHtv is starting to look up these days!

ed fielding 11-01-2008 12:51 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Cool!
Whatta treat.

I like Eliezer. I like his grasp of his data. I can get past the smug confidence of his ‘superior intelligence’, because he’s still humane, if verging on superciliousness. He knows lots of stuff even if he’s relishing his cocksureness. I’m not as smart as him, but he makes some things accessible.

Jaron, on the other hand, is one of my heroes, since maybe 1978 ot so, as he must have been to anyone who relished The Whole Earth Catalog. He commands respect from such as me simply for his collection of musical instruments. When you factor in his leadership in areas of thought in science, he kinda invalidates the usual containers and fences.
I’ve always been a big fan of invalidating fences. Down with enclosure! Spread the wealth!

This d-log embodies, more explicitly than might normally be possible, a puer/senex contest, the young and the old contending for leadership, for who has gotten further down the road, who understands better the challenges and fruitful opportunities. Young buck, as ’twere, full of his confident mastery versus the old fool who has spent a whole lot of time on that side-track, the highway, and a lot of other back roads and has a better map of the potholes and ruts, as well as personal familiarity with many of the most interesting characters who map out the road..
Emphatically not the traditional puer/senex pairing, because it isn’t the elder who wants to crush the youth, but who leads the way forward with laughter, and (as he says) intellectual modesty. The youth wants to demonstrate his confidence that the elder is too mired in the past, passé patterns of thinking, and silly anachronism.

Ain’t no contest (I’m happy to say as an elder), but it is a treat; a keeper.

Simon Willard 11-01-2008 01:23 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ed fielding (Post 96281)
... a puer/senex contest, the young and the old contending for leadership, for who has gotten further down the road, who understands better the challenges and fruitful opportunities. Young buck, as ’twere, full of his confident mastery versus the old fool who has spent a whole lot of time on that side-track, the highway, and a lot of other back roads and has a better map of the potholes and ruts...

Ed, you are really waxing poetic! This diavlog's going straight to my iPod.

AemJeff 11-01-2008 03:16 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
That was a nicely matched pairing. These guys ought to have the opportunity to publicly debate on a regular basis (hint.) Even if I didn't understand a word they were saying (and I'm making no claim about how much I understood) the back and forth was incredibly engaging. Each of them concentrates his ferocious skepticism on different aspects of what they seem only sort of agree is something like the same broad project. By the time they've moved off a specific topic, your belief in your ability to understand what to believe about it begins to seem seem questionable. That, to me, is the highest praise possible.

I hope we see more of both guys, together and separately.

cmonsour 11-01-2008 03:21 PM

Artificial Consciousness: Done
 
This idea that you could have a physically identical copy of a human being but except with the "consciousness" subtracted away is so ridiculous that it's hard to see how anyone takes it seriously. I think people only adopt it because they think there's some contradiction between the fact of subjective experience and the idea that the world is purely physical. But there's no contradiction. That feeling in your head is just what it feels like to be the specific physical system that you are.

Sometimes to hear these debates you would think that every time a human was born a great tear opened up in the fabric of the universe and the Ancient of Days was seen to bestow a soul on the new member of the race. People, we have the ability to create human consciousness in the laboratory. You take a human egg and sperm, which by every conceivable test appear to be purely physical entities and certainly do not appear to have any relationship to consciousness; you fertilise the one with the other; you allow the fused product to grow, which by every single bit of evidence involves nothing more than its individual subatomic components following the basic laws of physics that apply to living and non-living systems alike; and a few years later, you have something we all agree is conscious.

For practical reasons we can't skip straight to synthesizing the final product, but why on earth (or wherever) would you think that its property of consciousness depended on the precise process by which it came to exist?

AemJeff 11-01-2008 03:27 PM

Re: IQ Tests point estimates
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by eric (Post 96263)
Lanier argues that a three-digit IQ has specious precision, but he doesn't understand statistics. If you are estimating a number with a large standard error, the point estimate is still 'scientific' and 'valid'; those who assume there is no standard error are making a mistake, but the point estimate is still good. To group data by, say, the closest standard deviation would impart bias. What does he propose, that those with IQs from 116-125 be called '120'? That would mean not only do you have standard error from the test, but a standard error from the grouping that would be about as large, compounding the standard error.

I think part of his point is that there's reason to assume that the values generated by the test have any particular mapping to anything useful, since it's unclear what exactly they purport to measure. I think you're making an argument based on the idea that the values are just imprecisely measured. That's not really what I heard Lanier trying to say.

sealrock 11-01-2008 03:48 PM

Re: Jaron's Circle Speak
 
That's exactly right!

I would like like to add that when Lanier is cornered he seems to revert to nervously mentioning his great accomplishments and then impulsively attacks the ideas of the Singularity (saying that they should just stop their research) without any explanation as to why other than because *he* says so and then ever addresses the question at hand.

I had high hopes for Lanier but Eliezer won me over.

Foobs 11-01-2008 04:06 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
I very much enjoyed the diavlog, and not just because I kept waiting for Lanier to launch into the scat part from "Freak on a Leash"...

BeachFrontView 11-01-2008 06:00 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Great diavlog. Fascinating to listen to or an outsider. When they can predict the date computers are gonna take over the world come back on Bloggingheads and give us a heads up.

ektimo 11-01-2008 06:04 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
I used to argue for the possibility and importance of a mysterious thing also, though I wouldn’t have described it that way.

I changed my mind after reading this: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/got-crisis.html

(Yes, I'm a big fan of Eliezer’s writings.)

Wonderment 11-01-2008 08:43 PM

Re: Three Cheers for Lanier!
 
I liked the notion of "epistemological modesty."

Ocean 11-01-2008 10:52 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Hi all,

This is just a brief visit to thank BhTV for presenting a perspective on consciousness. Eliezer and Jaron are a great pair. They are both very knowledgeable, one with a more pragmatic approach and the other indulging in more meta ‘abstraction’ to include motivation, dogma, religious goals, and ‘spirituality’. Needless to say I had only superficial understanding of the AI related concepts discussed.

I do agree with Jaron about the importance of not only tolerating ‘uncertainty’ (metaphysical ambiguity), but of valuing its preservation in order to avoid a pointless direct pursuit of the unreachable. Of course, Eliezer will ask “why is it unreachable?” From a pragmatic perspective one has to believe that it may be reachable to advance knowledge, but one has to know that it will be unreachable or it will become meaningless. That’s the nature of the unknowable.

These abstract concepts can be very easily misinterpreted as religious. I do object to using the term ‘spiritual’ because the connection with magical, and religious belief is too loaded with negative connotations for the secular mind. I have made that mistake myself, for lack of better terminology. But if there’s anything I’m learning is to eradicate the ready made easy answers that are so tempting when one needs an explanation for complex and unknown situations, particularly when they defy any logical, rational framework that one has become accustomed to.

The idea of ‘zombies’ seems quite strange to me. If they were indeed identical to conscious beings, how could they be different? If there is an attribute to them that is different (ie: lacking consciousness), there has to be some difference even if we are unable to detect it. Or are we talking about something like a mirror image, or a virtual ‘twin’?

Jaron makes the point that some of the AI/ singularity advocates’ pursuits, such as immortality, are similar to those of religion. In essence, Jaron is pointing at our human need to deal with the prospect of death or suffering by evoking the hope of some magical savior. I’m not sure that this is a very meaningful concept, except in the sense of the kind of action each of those calls for. Are we going to pray, play the drum or develop scientifically based technologies? Or perhaps all of the above?

This is the kind of talk that leaves more questions than answers. Neat, don’t you think?

Wonderment 11-02-2008 12:40 AM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

This is just a brief visit
Ojalá que te quedes un rato. :)

Wonder Hussein Ment

bjkeefe 11-02-2008 03:37 AM

Re: 'artificial' dualism. Yes!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kidneystones (Post 96306)
Zogby puts McCain up by 1. [...] I place myself firmly among those who believe in alien abductions; demons living inside toasters; an all-knowing all-loving higher power principle that cannot be defined, described, or understood ...

For the record.

bjkeefe 11-02-2008 03:42 AM

Re: Dreaming of A Civilian Police State
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kidneystones (Post 96339)
Imagine George Bush funded to the tune of 600 million with a million or so willing zombies ready to spew forth any ridiculous talking points on demand.

Why imagine? You're describing 2000-2006. Only, your numbers are low, in both cases.

Timon 11-02-2008 04:39 AM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
MORE LIKE THIS

Francoamerican 11-02-2008 12:23 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
This was an enjoyable romp. I especially enjoyed Jaron Lanier and his mockery of some of more bizarre claims of AI fanatics, e.g. their insistance on denying the reality of consciousness. But since I have never understood why such intelligent people should be intent on denying what is the condition for denying (or affirming) anything (if you believe, as I do, that only self-conscious minds are capable of thinking ABOUT anything), I must confess I was predisposed in his favor. Reading books by Dennett or Pinker or Dawkins I always reach a point of exasperation where I want to throw their Darwinian rubbish into the nearest rubbish bin...but usually decide to keep them anyway: perhaps one day enlightenment will dawn and I shall become a zombie.

AemJeff 11-02-2008 12:28 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Francoamerican (Post 96360)
This was an enjoyable romp. I especially enjoyed Jaron Lanier and his mockery of some of more bizarre claims of AI fanatics, e.g. their insistance on denying the reality of consciousness. But since I have never understood why such intelligent people should be intent on denying what is the condition of denying (or affirming) anything (if you believe, as I do, that only self-conscious minds are capable of thinking ABOUT anything), I must confess I was predisposed in his favor. Reading Dennett or Pinker or Dawkins I always reach a point of exasperation where I want to throw their Darwinian rubbish into the nearest rubbish bin...but usually decide to keep them anyway: perhaps one day enlightenment will dawn and I shall become a zombie.

Darwinian rubbish? What do you propose as an alternative to that "rubbish?"

Francoamerican 11-02-2008 12:36 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 96361)
Darwinian rubbish? What do you propose as an alternative to that "rubbish?"


Nothing. Darwinism is valid as far as it goes and I have nothing but respect for evolutionary biologists. Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are not scientists: they are propagandists for metaphysical positions which are neither confirmed nor discomfirmed by evolution.

AemJeff 11-02-2008 12:43 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Francoamerican (Post 96362)
Nothing. Darwinism is valid as far as it goes and I have nothing but respect for evolutionary biologists. Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are not scientists: they are propagandists for metaphysical positions which are neither confirmed nor discomfirmed by evolution.

Dennett is a philosopher, Pinker and Dawkins are both scientists. All of them are respected and influential both in and out of their respective fields. By "propagandists" I take it you mean they have stated positions with which you have disagreements.

Added: to be clear, Dennett is a philosopher of science.

Francoamerican 11-02-2008 12:56 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 96364)
Dennett is a philosopher, Pinker and Dawkins are both scientists. All of them are respected and influential both in and out of their respective fields. By "propagandists" I take it you mean they have stated positions with which you have disagreements.

Added: to be clear, Dennett is a philosopher of science.


Thank you for your useless correction. In fact I am quite aware of their status in academia and, unlike you I seem actually to have read them too. Whatever their speciality, they take philosophical or metaphysical positions, which are NOT based on science.

If you cannot understand that simple distinction, don't bother to respond because I will not bother to reply!

AemJeff 11-02-2008 01:03 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Francoamerican (Post 96365)
Thank you for your useless correction. In fact I am quite aware of their status in academia and, unlike you I seem actually to have read them too. Whatever their speciality, they take philosophical or metaphysical positions, which are NOT based on science.

If you cannot understand that simple distinction, don't bother to respond because I will not bother to reply!

Logic, dude. Your conclusions should follow from your premises. Your assertions should be consistent with one another. To wit:

Franco:
Quote:

Dennett, Pinker and Dawkins are not scientists
Jeff:
Quote:

Dennett is a philosopher [of science], Pinker and Dawkins are both scientists.
Franco: (paraphrasing) Stop bringing up irrelevancies! Besides I've read them and you haven't! And I won't talk to you unless... (I don't quite understand the unless part here. I'm inferring that I won't. Oh well.)

Francoamerican 11-02-2008 01:32 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 96366)
Logic, dude. Your conclusions should follow from your premises. Your assertions should be consistent with one another. To wit:

Franco: (paraphrasing) Stop bringing up irrelevancies! Besides I've read them and you haven't! And I won't talk to you unless... (I don't quite understand the unless part here. I'm inferring that I won't. Oh well.)

What nitpicking. And no you clearly don't understand the distinction. But I am replying anyway. So I guess I AM illogical.

A scientist can speak as a philosopher and a philosopher can speak as a scientist. If you have read Dennett you should know that he constantly invokes scientific evidence and theories to justify his philosophical or metaphysical positions, among which are certain controversial views of mind. The same goes for Pinker and Dawkins in the opposite direction: they give philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of Darwinian ideas.

I have no objection to the theory of evolution, as I said. I just don't think evolutionary biologists and philosophers who follow them have ever said anything about consciousness and thought that makes an ounce of sense. That was the point of my original posting.

nikkibong 11-02-2008 01:40 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
oh, of course, i mean, obviously:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/155...3:57&out=04:26

AemJeff 11-02-2008 01:45 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Francoamerican (Post 96369)
What nitpicking. And no you clearly don't understand the distinction. But I am replying anyway. So I guess I AM illogical.

A scientist can speak as a philosopher and a philosopher can speak as a scientist. If you have read Dennett you should know that he constantly invokes scientific evidence and theories to justify his philosophical or metaphysical positions, among which are certain controversial views of mind. The same goes for Pinker and Dawkins in the opposite direction: they give philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of Darwinian ideas.

I have no objection to the theory of evolution, as I said. I just don't think evolutionary biologists and philosophers who follow them have ever said anything about consciousness and thought that makes an ounce of sense. That was the point of my original posting.

It's taken you this many posts just to name, not even describe, your problem with what these folks have written. And yet each of your responses has been an attack on my understanding. An inference which, while it might well be true, certainly isn't evident from my fairly pointed posts. It's an interesting approach, I guess: no matter what your opponent says, just keep implying they don't know what they're talking about. Substance free, but often effective.

Francoamerican 11-02-2008 02:23 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 96372)
It's taken you this many posts just to name, not even describe, your problem with what these folks have written. And yet each of your responses has been an attack on my understanding. An inference which, while it might well be true, certainly isn't evident from my fairly pointed posts. It's an interesting approach, I guess: no matter what your opponent says, just keep implying they don't know what they're talking about. Substance free, but often effective.


No actually it's taken you at least this many posts to understand, and frankly I doubt if you have understood much of anything.

Basta!

By the way there are several errors in your English.

AemJeff 11-02-2008 02:25 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Francoamerican (Post 96374)
By the way there are several errors in your English.

There always are. Thanks for noticing,

jeremyr 11-02-2008 02:32 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Computer scientists talking about philosophy is about as interesting and informative as philosophers talking about computer science.

jeremyr 11-02-2008 02:39 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
We are, of course, conscious critters: pain hurts, etc. But why are you so confident that consciousness is where thinking happens?

JoeK 11-02-2008 03:58 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Francoamerican (Post 96369)
What nitpicking. And no you clearly don't understand the distinction. But I am replying anyway. So I guess I AM illogical.

A scientist can speak as a philosopher and a philosopher can speak as a scientist. If you have read Dennett you should know that he constantly invokes scientific evidence and theories to justify his philosophical or metaphysical positions, among which are certain controversial views of mind. The same goes for Pinker and Dawkins in the opposite direction: they give philosophical or metaphysical interpretations of Darwinian ideas.

I have no objection to the theory of evolution, as I said. I just don't think evolutionary biologists and philosophers who follow them have ever said anything about consciousness and thought that makes an ounce of sense. That was the point of my original posting.

Dawkins doesn't say anything about the nature of consciousness. Pinker and Dennett say different things. While Pinker basically agrees with Lanier that it's a mystery, Dennett, god blessed him, explained the consciousness.

ejim 11-02-2008 06:26 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
This was disappointing. Lanier could not defend ANYTHING he said! He constantly changed the topic or argued from ignorance. We don't know so we can't know. Or im a really smart guy who has worked in this field for a long time and i have not found this idea useful. Ok valid but really limited statement. Also true that people can treat AI as a religion and it can make them nutty. But just because people believe wrong things about something does not make the subject itself wrong. example: quantum mechanics.

It is true that i have found AI and singularity people off putting but Laniers inability to defend his position has moved me to be more sympathetic to the efforts of strong AI people.

I think the one thing i would like to see defended is the time frame argument for AI. You do act different whether you think AI is imminent or that it is not. It could be ten years or it could be a few thousand. It does not seem decidable.

PS. Lanier started this BHTV clip trying to argue for epistemological soundness when considering AI statements and here rejects completely epistemology. Why did he not just defend himself? He seemed to say yes i do accept an unjustified belief. He said that clearly, it seems defensible, but hen he seems to deny that that is even the point. why? He seems to want to avoid saying anything concrete even if he just said it and it was defensible he goes on to change the subject and say this is not something you can even talk about?

olmeta 11-02-2008 06:48 PM

SKY HOOK ALERT!
 
Lanier loses this argument just as Bob Wright lost it to Dennett.

ledocs 11-02-2008 11:20 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
First of all, I am completely in the tank for the Lanier position, namely that brain does not equal consciousness. I did think, however, that Lanier had only intuitive reasons for subscribing to this position and was not at all an articulate proponent of the idea that consciousness does not equal brain. I take it for granted that the strong AI position is that the brain is a machine, in some sense. The discussion should have come around to various phenomena of consciousness that would be difficult, if not impossible, to program: free will, most notably, but also mood, internal time consciousness, consciousness of death, just to name a few features of human consciousness that for me appear to defy mechanistic explanation. To this list one must add the general quality of inwardness, what we call the self. The list is rather long. But Lanier, while he has good intuitions about how the battle between AI proponents and what I will call the phenomenological account of consciousness should come out, doesn't really seem to have thought analytically about the battle. I just came away thinking, OK, here is another person who is obviously very bright, but he's not really engaging the argument.

One of the most remarkable things I have ever heard is John Searle's lecture series on mind for the Learning Company. Searle, one of the main opponents of strong AI, is nevertheless also a strong proponent of the equation between mind and brain. But towards the end of this lecture series he confesses that this hypothetical equation cannot be reconciled with free will and leaves it at that. He is committed to believing in two things which are completely irreconcilable, and he knows it. So the obvious thing to do, to my mind, is to throw out the hypothesis that mind equals brain.

Nate 11-02-2008 11:34 PM

Eliezer faces
 
Some of the (scowling?) faces Yudkowsky makes to some of the nonsense Lanier says are priceless.

AemJeff 11-02-2008 11:39 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ledocs (Post 96416)
First of all, I am completely in the tank for the Lanier position, namely that brain does not equal consciousness. I did think, however, that Lanier had only intuitive reasons for subscribing to this position and was not at all an articulate proponent of the idea that consciousness does not equal brain. I take it for granted that the strong AI position is that the brain is a machine, in some sense. The discussion should have come around to various phenomena of consciousness that would be difficult, if not impossible, to program: free will, most notably, but also mood, internal time consciousness, consciousness of death, just to name a few features of human consciousness that for me appear to defy mechanistic explanation. To this list one must add the general quality of inwardness, what we call the self. The list is rather long. But Lanier, while he has good intuitions about how the battle between AI proponents and what I will call the phenomenological account of consciousness should come out, doesn't really seem to have thought analytically about the battle. I just came away thinking, OK, here is another person who is obviously very bright, but he's not really engaging the argument.

One of the most remarkable things I have ever heard is John Searle's lecture series on mind for the Learning Company. Searle, one of the main opponents of strong AI, is nevertheless also a strong proponent of the equation between mind and brain. But towards the end of this lecture series he confesses that this hypothetical equation cannot be reconciled with free will and leaves it at that. He is committed to believing in two things which are completely irreconcilable, and he knows it. So the obvious thing to do, to my mind, is to throw out the hypothesis that mind equals brain.

I didn't understand Lanier to really be making the assertive argument so much as cautioning away from dogmatic acceptance of what may seem axiomatic to some AI proponents. It's not easy to talk about consciousness meaningfully, there are all sorts of paradoxes and definitional hurdles that get in the way of saying things with enough scope to be meaningful that are also coherent. I thought the most important point Lanier made was to cast some doubt on the utility of reductive arguments to answer basic questions.

Wonderment 11-02-2008 11:48 PM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
I didn't get the impression that Lanier rules out robots who are fully conscious.

My understanding was that he only rejects the idea that such a dramatic contingency/singularity is around the corner, that AI is significantly moving in the right direction, that such intelligence is likely to emerge in a computer or in cyberspace.

I can't imagine anyone really arguing that we will never create supersmart creatures. If technology doesn't self-destruct, it seems a good bet that in a couple of hundred or a thousand years, we will have created or seeded conscious creatures smarter than us. We may get them through genetic tweakings and brain enhancements or combinations of machines and bodies.

There's no reason to believe that consciousness and selfhood (personhood) are limited on the high-intelligence end of the spectrum to homo sapiens.

We'll eventually figure out how to build it.

Ocean 11-03-2008 12:22 AM

Re: Science Saturday: Dreaming of an Artificial Intelligence
 
I'm so impressed...


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.