You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Thomas comments on Future of Moral Machines - New York Times [link] - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: Dr_Manhattan 26 December 2011 02:44PM

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

Comments (10)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Thomas 26 December 2011 03:14:32PM 2 points [-]

Many Singularitarians assume a lot, not the least of which is that intelligence is fundamentally a computational process.

What else it would be? Except the divine origin of thoughts nothing was submitted as an alternative so far.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 26 December 2011 04:00:20PM 9 points [-]

I distrust "what else would it be"-style arguments; they are ultimately appeals to inadequate imagination.

Certainly of the things we understand reasonably well, computation is the only candidate that could explain intelligence; if intelligence weren't fundamentally a computational process it would have to fundamentally be something we don't yet understand.

Just to be clear, I'm not challenging the conclusion; given the sorts of things that intelligence does, and the sorts of things that computations do, that intelligence is a form of computation seems pretty likely to me. What I'm pushing back on is the impulse to play burden-of-proof tennis with questions like this, rather than accepting the burden of proof and trying to meet it.

Comment author: billswift 27 December 2011 04:59:32AM 0 points [-]

I can imagine a great many other things it could be, but in the real world people have to go by the evidential support. Your post is just a variation of the "argument from ignorance" , as in "We don't know in detail what intelligence is, so it could be something else", even though you admit "Certainly of the things we understand reasonably well, computation is the only candidate that could explain intelligence".

Comment author: Manfred 26 December 2011 05:24:45PM *  3 points [-]

Building an AI does not require it being a computer - it could be a bunch of rubber bands if that's what worked. The assumption is more like intelligence is not inherently mysterious, and humans are not at some special perfect point of intelligence.

Comment author: MileyCyrus 27 December 2011 05:24:50AM 7 points [-]

Building an AI does not require it being a computer - it could be a bunch of rubber bands if that's what worked

You can build a computer out of pretty much anything, including rubber bands.