[ExI] fun outsider's view on ai

[spike]

Nothing particularly profound or insightful in this AI article, but it is
good clean fun:

 

https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-implau
sible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter
<https://aeon.co/essays/true-ai-is-both-logically-possible-and-utterly-impla
usible?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9
_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125
>
&utm_campaign=6469cf0d50-Daily_Newsletter_9_May_20165_9_2016&utm_medium=emai
l&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-6469cf0d50-68957125

 

He reminds me a little of Roger Penrose's take on the subject from a long
time ago: he introduces two schools of thought, pokes fun at both while
offering little or no evidence or support, then reveals he is pretty much a
follower of one of the two: the Church of AI-theists.

 

There are plenty of AI-theists, but nowhere have I ever seen a really good
argument for why we can never simulate a neuron and a dendrite and synapses.
Once we understand them well enough, we can write a sim of one.  We already
have sims of complicated systems, such as aircraft, nuclear plants and such.
So why not a brain cell?   And if so, why not two, and why not a connectome
and why can we not simulate a brain?  I have been pondering that question
for over 2 decades and have still never found a good reason.  That puts me
in Floridi-dismissed Church of the Singularitarian.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160509/1cb731bf/attachment.html>