Ppl are less delusional by then. I saw one bro posting about how he was disappointed by his AI buddy and decided to end his friendship with it β¦ by deleting it.
A philosopher stood in a TV Studio in 1984 and disproved artificial consciousness with a single locked room thought experiment.
the interview captures John Searle presenting his famous Chinese Room argument, explaining why a computer passing the Turing test still understands nothing.
he asked the host to imagine a man locked inside a room with a massive rulebook. the man speaks zero Chinese. people slide Chinese "squiggle" symbols under the door, he matches them using the rules, and slides the correct response back out.
to anyone outside, the room appears to speak fluent Chinese. but neither the man nor the rulebook actually understands a single word.
he proved the fundamental difference between syntax and semantics. manipulating uninterpreted formal symbols is not the same as understanding meaning.
40 years later, AI labs claim their trillion-parameter models are developing inner thoughts and reasoning.
the models are just gigantic Chinese Rooms, running trillions of matrix multiplications to slide the next token under the door.
founders sell sentient machines to investors. a philosopher exposed the trick 40 years ago.
@elonmusk Whether or not it's a simulation, it won't fundamentally affect how (time and info) flow. This duality works both ways, approximately in every feasible direction.
Imagine a particle like a domino that doesn't fall in one direction but vibrates by itself and interacts with others
@salahudeen33 I think it is ridiculous to ask a machine, one should ask his heart. Plus, ask Ai for verification slowly and unconsciously takes away oneβs ability from searching the truth. The pretend to be intelligence isnβt intelligence, unless your IQ really need a machine for confirmation.
@QuantumTumbler 7. Our 5 senses provide inputs to the brain, and the brain is without the ability to feel pain. Thus by the brain itself is lack of our βfullβ awareness. Which means by logic even simulate the brain ABA wonβt provide awareness, understanding and consciousness.
@QuantumTumbler 6. Therefore, even we get a brain simulated atom by atom (ABA) on a computer, doesnβt change its physics nor can a computer grows a brain, nor makes the halting problem disappear. Then, we canβt βapplyβ consciousness to a Turing machine.
@QuantumTumbler Computation must support consciousness, but due to incompleteness consciousness cannot arise solely from computation which is basically a physical process, it doesnβt aware nor understand nor sense. It is learning without understanding nor consciousness.
@QuantumTumbler 4. A Turing machine fundamentally lacks the ability to generate consciousness due to its logical limitations. For example, itβs non-stop problem.
But now we both know this conversation should be endless and I shall end here. I enjoy the conversation a lot, thx.
@QuantumTumbler 3. Simply simulate a brain atom by atom on a computer is like telling the program run according to a set of computational functionalities, but the program itself wonβt acquire senses to generate awareness nor consciousness.
@QuantumTumbler 2. Our awareness comes from at least our 5 senses and information feed processed and reacted by the brain. Without awareness we can be no longer consciousness.
@QuantumTumbler Right, thatβs a fair point. Let me put it this way: if you simulate your mom and dad atom by atom at the moment of process that lead to your birth (plz donβt take it offensively), everything exactly replicated, do they eventually give birth to a biological infant of you?