estimator comments on On the Galactic Zoo hypothesis - Less Wrong

-8 Post author: estimator 16 July 2015 07:12PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (19)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: estimator 17 July 2015 12:26:59AM 0 points [-]

Modern computers can be programmed to do almost every task a human can make, including very high-level ones, that's why sort-of yes, they are (and maybe sort-of conscious, if you are willing to stretch this concept that far).

Some time ago we could program computers to execute some algorithm which solves a problem; now we have machine learning and don't have to provide an algorithm for every task; but we still have different machine learning algorithms for different areas/meta-tasks (computer vision, classification, time series prediction, etc.). When we build systems that are capable of solving problems in all these areas simultaneously -- and combining the results to reach some goal -- I would call such systems truly intelligent.

Having said that, I don't think I need an insight or explanation here -- because well, I mostly agree with you or jacob_cannel -- it's likely that intelligence and unconsciousness are logically incompatible. Yet as long as the problem of consciousness is not fully resolved, I can't be certain, therefore assign non-zero probability for the conjunction to be possible.

Comment author: Viliam 17 July 2015 08:57:51AM *  1 point [-]

"can be programmed to" is not the same thing as intelligence. It requires external intelligence to program it. Using the same pattern, I could say that atoms are intelligent (and maybe sort-of conscious), because for almost any human task, they can be rebuilt into something that does it.