= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Ander comments on What if Strong AI is just not possible? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (101)
We exist. Therefore strong AI is possible, in that if you were to exactly replicate all of the features of a human, you would have created a strong AI (unless there is some form of Dualism and that you needed whatever a 'soul' is from the 'higher reality' to become conscious).
What things might make Strong AI really really hard, though not impossible?
Maybe a neuron is actually way way more complicated than we currently think, so the problem of making an AI is a lot more complex. etc.
No, you would have created a human.
*twitch*
?
Saying they would have created a human adds no information; worse, it adds noise in the form of whatever ideas you're trying to sneak into the discussion by saying this, or in the form of whatever any reader might misinterpret from using this label.
You haven't even made the claim that "The set of humans minds might possibly be outside of the set of possible Strong AI minds", so your argument isn't even about whether or not "Strong AIs" includes "Humans".
Basically, I was peeve-twitching because you're turning the whole thing into a pointless argument about words. And now you've caused me the inconvenience of writing this response. Backtrack: Hence the twitching.
"The set of humans minds might possibly be outside of the set of possible Strong AI minds"
Uh, you know what the 'A' in 'Strong AI' stands for, don't you?
You may choose to ignore the etymology of the term, and include humans in the set of Strong AIs, but that's not the generally used definition of the term, and I'm sure that the original poster, the poster I responded to, and pretty much everybody else on this thread was referring to non-human intelligences.
Therefore, my points stands: if you were to exactly replicate all of the features of a human, you would have created a human, not a non-human intelligence.
If I replicate the brain algorithm of a human, but I do it in some other form (e.g. as a computer program, instead of using carbon based molecules), is that an "AI"?
If I make something very very similar, but not identical to the brain algorithm of a human, but I do it in some other form (e.g. as a computer program, instead of using carbon based molecules), is that an "AI?"
Its a terminology discussion at this point, I think.
In my original reply my intent was "provided that there are no souls/inputs from outside the universe required to make a functioning human, then we are able to create an AI by building something functionally equivalent to a human, and therefore strong AI is possible".
Possibly, that's a borderline case.
Even if humans are essentially computable, in a theoretical sense, it doesnt follow that it is physically possible to build something functionally equivalent on a different type of hardware, under practical constraints.
Think of running Google on a mechanical computer like Babbage's Analytical Engine.