Yeah, that's the germ of an actually profound observation about us vs them. "What it's
like" to be some thing is nothing more than a strong analogy, both behavioral and structural.
If you have all the same parts of another thing, and you have all the same behaviors as another
thing, then you experience "what it's like" to be that other thing. True of computers.
True of Trump.
An MD Psych therapist friend of mine divides people into 2 groups: 1) the
splitters, who incessantly parse, and 2) the smooshers, who incessantly
integrate. A splitter with a slightly different database of grievances would
make great hay of their tiny differences with Trump (maybe Liz Cheney?). A
smoosher would ignore any small differences between themselves and Trump (maybe
Kevin McCarthy?).
On 6/20/22 09:35, Barry MacKichan wrote:
This prompts me to propose, with tongue slightly in cheek, the /Weak Turing
Test/, which consists of a remote observer trying to distinguish between a
computer and Donald Trump. It doesn’t require any deep analysis on the part of
the computer, just a database of grievances.
—Barry
On 20 Jun 2022, at 11:45, glen wrote:
"None of this has anything to do with artificial consciousness, of course. “I
don’t anthropomorphize,” Chowdhery said bluntly. “We are simply predicting language.”
Artificial consciousness is a remote dream that remains firmly entrenched in science
fiction, because we have no idea what human consciousness is; there is no functioning
falsifiable thesis of consciousness, just a bunch of vague notions. And if there is no
way to test for consciousness, there is no way to program it. You can ask an algorithm to
do only what you tell it to do. All that we can come up with to compare machines with
humans are little games, such as Turing’s imitation game, that ultimately prove
nothing."
What amazes me is that few take the logical step of suggesting that there is no such thing as
consciousness. We're all "simply predicting language." The only difference between an
animal and a language predicting chatbot is that we *also* "simply predict" actions in 4D
spacetime. Any disconnect between the serial prediction of tokens from the (not-so-serial)
prediction of all actions is that dimension reduction.
On 6/20/22 08:15, Marcus Daniels wrote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/06/google-palm-ai-artificial-consciousness/661329/
<https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/06/google-palm-ai-artificial-consciousness/661329/>
<https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/06/google-palm-ai-artificial-consciousness/661329/
<https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/06/google-palm-ai-artificial-consciousness/661329/>>
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
