gnidrologs (![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} gnidrologs) rakstīja,@ 2017-05-10 15:08:00 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
par AI
Labs raksts par iespējamo mašīnintlektu (labs, jo izomorfs maniem uzskatiem lulz).
So now your consciousness exists as a series of numbers in a computer; that is all a computer program is, after all. Let's go a little further with this. Let's suppose you have a marvelous new sensor that can read the positions of every raindrop in a storm. Gather all those raindrop positions as a list of numbers and pretend those numbers are a computer program. Now start searching through all the possible computers that could exist up to a certain very large size until you find one that treats the raindrop positions as a program that is exactly equivalent to your brain. Yes, it can be done: The list of possible computers of any particular size is large but finite, and so is your brain, according to the earlier steps in the thought experiment, anyway.
[...]
AI proponents usually seize on some specific stage in my reducto ad absurdum to locate the point where I've gone too far. But the chosen stage varies widely from proponent to proponent. Some concoct finicky rules for what matter has to do to be conscious; be the minimum physical system isomorphic to a conscious algorithm, for instance. The problem with such rules is that they have to race ahead of my absurdifying thought experiments, so they become stringent to the point that they no longer allow the brain itself to be conscious. The brain is almost certainly not the minimum physical system isomorphic to its thought processes, for instance.
[...]
Some others object that an asteroid swarm doesn't DO anything, while a mind acts in the world in a way that we can understand. I would respond that to the right alien, it might appear that people do nothing, and asteroid swarms are acting consciously. Even on Earth we can see enough variation in organisms to doubt the universality of the human perspective. How easy would it be for an intelligent bacteria to notice people as integral entities? We might appear more as slow storms moving into the bacterial environment. If we are relying solely on the human perspective to validate machine consciousness, we're really only putting human-ness on an even higher pedestal than it might have been at the start of our thought experiment.
Labs raksts par iespējamo mašīnintlektu (labs, jo izomorfs maniem uzskatiem lulz).
So now your consciousness exists as a series of numbers in a computer; that is all a computer program is, after all. Let's go a little further with this. Let's suppose you have a marvelous new sensor that can read the positions of every raindrop in a storm. Gather all those raindrop positions as a list of numbers and pretend those numbers are a computer program. Now start searching through all the possible computers that could exist up to a certain very large size until you find one that treats the raindrop positions as a program that is exactly equivalent to your brain. Yes, it can be done: The list of possible computers of any particular size is large but finite, and so is your brain, according to the earlier steps in the thought experiment, anyway.
[...]
AI proponents usually seize on some specific stage in my reducto ad absurdum to locate the point where I've gone too far. But the chosen stage varies widely from proponent to proponent. Some concoct finicky rules for what matter has to do to be conscious; be the minimum physical system isomorphic to a conscious algorithm, for instance. The problem with such rules is that they have to race ahead of my absurdifying thought experiments, so they become stringent to the point that they no longer allow the brain itself to be conscious. The brain is almost certainly not the minimum physical system isomorphic to its thought processes, for instance.
[...]
Some others object that an asteroid swarm doesn't DO anything, while a mind acts in the world in a way that we can understand. I would respond that to the right alien, it might appear that people do nothing, and asteroid swarms are acting consciously. Even on Earth we can see enough variation in organisms to doubt the universality of the human perspective. How easy would it be for an intelligent bacteria to notice people as integral entities? We might appear more as slow storms moving into the bacterial environment. If we are relying solely on the human perspective to validate machine consciousness, we're really only putting human-ness on an even higher pedestal than it might have been at the start of our thought experiment.
