@perrymetzger Totally disagree. You’ve been willing to say that you find doom scenarios to be extremely unlikely. This is not substantively different from saying your P(Doom) is less than 1/1000 or whatever.
@SBingfa@scottstts Completely wrong. Until recently, no one knew how to make use of a large compute budget to even make progress on these kinds of problems.
@MbProfesora@HPluckrose No, she’s right. You haven’t actually said anything material in the entire thread. If her content is so objectionable, you should be able to produce a concrete objection.
@markvalorian What? “Organic surrounding play” doesn’t determine outcomes in sport in any case. If a player misses a shot by a millimeter, even after a beautifully executed run-up, it’s no goal.
@ShamanicFallout@LordBenne@mookiealexander You’re missing the core objection. Observers are asserting that they consider the rule to be against the spirit of the game in certain situations. That kind of discourse is also common in American sports and often leads to rule changes.
@TomPMarshall@zdeborova You accuse the OP of straw-manning while summarizing her statement in a way which is both absurd and diametrically opposed to what she actually said.
@stephenbeckner@allTheYud@robbensinger That’s backwards also. If you are claiming that something is categorically impossible, you have to back that up with evidence.
My own view, which I haven’t stated yet, is that it’s a hard problem and everyone who is 100% confident either way is overconfident.
@JFPuget 3. This objection is the reason for the word “exact”. The influence of the power supply is limited to whether it’s sufficient to effect the algorithm.
4. A person executing an algorithm is certainly possible — we teach children to add integers by summing columns and carrying.
@stephenbeckner@allTheYud@robbensinger In other words, our disagreement is not about consciousness and AI. It’s about the idea of a definition.
What I am pointing out is that you can either support a claim with evidence or define it to be true, but doing both at the same time is logically incoherent.
@stephenbeckner@allTheYud@robbensinger Your definition of consciousness is so unusable that you can’t even stick to it yourself. You’re using the term the way everyone else uses it (i.e., no a priori substrate dependence) and drawing a conclusion that you clearly intend to be non-tautological.
@stephenbeckner@allTheYud@robbensinger Said another way, if your position is that machines are not conscious because your definition of consciousness precludes it, you have not actually made any object-level claim whatsoever.
@stephenbeckner@allTheYud@robbensinger I don’t buy this argument.
We could also collectively decide to define consciousness as that which happens in the southern hemisphere only. In the northern hemisphere it is merely simulated.
Of course, no one is going to accept that this makes sense.
@Jacobtheclipper I recommend getting in touch with a toddler for help learning which one is the elbow. While you’re at it, you could also ask about head, shoulders, knees, and toes.