[ExI] fun outsider's view on ai
sparge at gmail.com
Mon May 9 16:27:24 UTC 2016
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:44 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Nothing particularly profound or insightful in this AI article, but it is
> good clean fun:
Yeah, not bad. Mostly on the mark, IMO, but he says a few things that are
just not rational.
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.
To be fair, he says both camps are wrong and the truth is probably
somewhere in between. And I agree.
> 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
Yeah, his "True AI is not logically impossible, but it is utterly
implausible" doesn't seem to be based on reality.
I'm neither a Singularitarian nor an AItheist. I think human-level AI is
inevitable, if President Trump doesn't manage to wipe out the human race
first :-). But I don't buy the notion that super intelligence is akin to a
superpower, and don't think it's necessary for an AI to have consciousness,
human-like emotions, or the ability to set its own goals, and without those
there is no need to fear them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat