<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 Henry Rivera </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:hrivera@alumni.virginia.edu" target="_blank">hrivera@alumni.virginia.edu</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Modifying benchmarks in response to our better understanding of the<br></span><span style="font-size:12.8px">complexity of the tasks at hand is understandable</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">Yes it's perfectly understandably, we understand the problem much better that we did 20 years ago and that makes people scared, hence the whistling past the graveyard. </div> </font></div><div class="gmail_quote"> <br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I'm with the skeptic who posted here recently<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>representing the opposition, I forget who, in believing we are very<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>far from developing strong AI, if it's even possible.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">We know that Evolution has made intelligence billions of times and consciousness <b>at least</b> once, so if random mutation and natural selection can do it why can't we?</div> </font></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>My take is that<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>conscious machines are really what people are thinking of when they<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>refer to AI, not superior automated Go decision-tree-machines. </blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default"><font size="4"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">To hell with consciousness I'm much more interested in intelligence. If the AI isn't consciousness that's it's problem not mine, but the machine's intelligence effects me directly. </font></font></div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>People<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>will argue about whether (implied) strong AI is possible on the<br>
internet until this is resolved, but it's an empirical question<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>ultimately.</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></font></div><font size="4">Artificial intelligence can be resolved empirically by having a computer outsmart a person, but there is no way to prove that something artificial (or natural for that matter) is consciousness, the only thing we know for certain that's conscious is ourselves. But proof or no proof everybody and I do mean everybody assumes that if something is intelligent then it's conscious, or at least everybody did assume that until things that weren't wet and squishy started to get smart.</font></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"> John K Clark </font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div> </font></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">So time will tell. This article I saw recently sums up the<br>
problems with strong AI well, I think. The author references Searle<br>
and Feynman.<br>
<a href="http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/a-neuroscientist-explains-why-artificially-intelligent-robots-will-never-have-consciousness-like-humans/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/a-neuroscientist-explains-why-artificially-intelligent-robots-will-never-have-consciousness-like-humans/</a><br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888">-Henry<br>
</font></span><div class=""><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>