> On 19 Feb 2018, at 04:41, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 8:35:59 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:09:37 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote:
>> On 2/18/2018 6:11 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 4:25:07 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>> > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote:
>>> > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG
>>> > >
>>> > > https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligence-singularity-less-30-years-away
>>> > >
>>> > > <https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligence-singularity-less-30-years-away>
>>> > >
>>> > So we need to sharpen the question. Exactly *what* is 30yrs away?
>>> > Brent
>>> According to the title (I haven't RTFA), it's the
>>> singularity. Starting from a point where a machine designs,
>>> and manufactures improved copies of itself, technology will supposedly
>>> veer from it's exponential path (Moore's law) etc to hyperbolic. Being
>>> hyperbolic, it reaches infinity within a finite period of time,
>>> expected to be a matter of months perhaps.
>>> Given that we really don't understand creative processes (not even
>>> good old fashioned biological evolution is really well understood),
>>> I'm sceptical about the 30 years prognostication. It is mostly based on
>>> extrapolating Moore's law, which is the easy part of technological change.
>>> This won't be a problem for my children - my grandchildren perhaps, if
>>> I ever end up having any.
>>> One thing a computer can not do is ask a question. I can ask a question and
>>> program a computer to help solve the problem. In fact I am doing a program
>>> to do just this. I am working a computer program to model aspects of
>>> gravitational memory. What the computer will not do, at least computers we
>>> currently employ will not do is to ask the question and then work to solve
>>> it. A computer can find a numerical solution or render something
>>> numerically, but it does not spontaneously act to ask the question or to
>>> propose something creative to then solve or render the solution.
>> You must never have applied for a loan online.
>> It can only do what it has been programmed to do. I can't act independent of
>> its program, such as wondering if some theory makes sense, or coming up with
>> tests of a theory. Or say, it can't invent chess, it can only play it better
>> than humans. It can't "think" out of the box. AG
> Yes, keep repeating that over and over. Repitition makes a convincing
> argument...for some people.
> What's your countervailing evidence? You want to think it can think, and
> that's YOUR repetitious argument. AG
What is your evidence for something not Turing emulable in the human brain. If
string Ai is false (machine cannot think) then computationalism is false, but
then something non Turing emulable exist playing a role in human consciousness:
what is it? The pineal gland? the microtubules?
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.