[ExI] More thoughts on sentient computers

[spike at rainier66.com]

From: Giovanni Santostasi <gsantostasi at gmail.com <mailto:gsantostasi at gmail.com> > 

>…There is no evidence that we need QM for consciousness…

 

Some of us were already primed for that conclusion over 30 years ago.  Read on please.

 

>… these networks that are trained with enough data and have enough degrees of freedom can indeed mimic language extremely well. This is an emergent property that arises from complex but not QM systems …

Somewhere around 1990 or so, chess software went thru a gradual transition where it seemed to play more like humans.  Before that, it was easy to tell if a game was played with a computer opponent, but after about 1990 it wasn’t always clear.  The software itself was not all that complicated really, no tricky functions we didn’t understand.  It was quite the ego buster to chess players.  We discovered we are machines, that don’t perform all that well really.

>…The AI is going through a deep place in the uncanny valley. 

Chess software was crossing uncanny valley 30 yrs ago.  Those of us who watched that were primed to software crossing that valley in one field after another.  I think we are seeing that happen now, simultaneously, in fields we never expected, such as composing letters expressing empathy for when a computer just took your job.

>… we are not really sure of what is going on in the black box…

 

Ja, and it offers insight into what is happening in the black box between our ears: not as much as we once thought, even though we don’t know why we ever thought there was more to thought than we now think.  Chess players get that.

 

>…Our brain is a simulation, not sure why it is not understood by most people. …

 

I want a better one, ideally one I don’t need to hide.  I need it soon.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230222/e86a5e84/attachment.htm>