On Aug 6, 7:40 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When you are online you don't analyse the biochemical make-up of you
> interlocutor, but you still come to a conclusion as to whether they
> are intelligent or not. If in doubt you can always ask a series of
> questions: I'm sure you are confident in your ability to tell the
> difference between a person and a bot. But there may come a time when
> it is impossible in general to tell the difference,

Why does that matter though? What does being able to tell the
difference between a bot and a person have to do with a bot feeling
like a person?

and then we will
> have human level AI (soon after we will have superhuman AI and soon
> after that the human race may be supplanted, but that's a separate
> question).

The human race has already been supplanted by a superhuman AI. It's
called law and finance.

> > I don't understand what all of this debate over how intelligence seems
> > from the outside has to do with how it is experienced from the inside.
> > Here's a thought experiment for the anti-zombie. If I study randomness
> > and learn to impersonate machine randomness perfectly, have I become a
> > machine? Have I lost sentience? Why not?
> Intelligence can fake non-intelligence, but non-intelligence can't
> fake intelligence.

But intelligence can fake intelligence using non-intelligence. A
computer isn't faking intelligence, it's just spinning a quantitative
instruction set through semiconductors. It's only us who think it's
intelligent. In fact it is intelligent, as a long polymer molecule is
intelligent, but it is not conscious as an animal is conscious.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to