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.

Lumifer comments on Three questions about source code uncertainty - Less Wrong Discussion

9 Post author: cousin_it 24 July 2014 01:18PM

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

Comments (28)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 28 July 2014 03:45:44PM 1 point [-]

In the broadest sense, the hypothesis is somewhat trivial.

No, I don't think so.

For instance, if we are communicating with an agent over a channel with n bits of information capacity, then there are 2^n possible exchanges. Given any n, it is possible to create a simulation that picks the "right" exchange, such that it is indistinguishable from a human.

Are you making the Searle's Chinese Room argument?

In any case, even if we accept the purely functional approach, it doesn't seem obvious to me that you must be able to create a simulation which picks the "right" answer in the future. You don't get to run 2^n instances and say "Pick whichever one you satisfies your criteria".

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 29 July 2014 02:54:17AM 0 points [-]

Well, I did say "In the broadest sense", so yes, that does imply a purely functional approach.

You don't get to run 2^n instances and say "Pick whichever one you satisfies your criteria".

The claim was that it is possible in principle. And yes, It is possible, in principle, to run 2^n instances and pick the one that satisfies the criteria.

Comment author: Lumifer 29 July 2014 04:04:40AM 1 point [-]

And yes, It is possible, in principle, to run 2^n instances and pick the one that satisfies the criteria.

That's not simulating intelligence. That's just a crude exhaustive search.

And I am not sure you have enough energy in the universe to run 2^n instances, anyway.