269400+ entries in 0.11s
mircea_popescu: perhaps except for the queen, but that's an endless discussion.
mircea_popescu: well it all started with you asking for a definition of ai.
mircea_popescu: <mircea_popescu> any computer program of which identifiable components can be unambiguously named is not capable of displaying AI. << this obviously requires you to be allowed under the hood.
mircea_popescu: when intelligences meet without that basis, superamazement ensues.
mircea_popescu: so we eliza-recognise what WE do on the grounds of culture and convention
mircea_popescu: this is counterintuitive, because we're very ethnicallyclose, so to speak,
mircea_popescu: well, this definition is, "when you recognise what's being done, but neither why nor how, you're confronted with intelligence"
mircea_popescu: say if you showed this process to 1k randomly selected 5 yos, would they say "it built itself a house" ?
mircea_popescu: so your argument is that ant meets my definition of ai ?
mircea_popescu: see, that "intend to go" is exactly why the preoccupation with non identifiability.
mircea_popescu: if the machine ends up housed within a house of its own making at the end of a process which was not either understood or its endpoint predictable by observers, well... iut;'s intelligent.
mircea_popescu: while no identifiable part of the code deals with housebuilding.
mircea_popescu: a good example would be, a spontaneous determination to build itself a house,
☟︎ mircea_popescu: well, the only way to build one may be to first build a planet, then let cnc evolve.
mircea_popescu: i superficially suspect this discussion proves there can never be turing ai.,
mircea_popescu: well yeah but if it did violate restatement then either i'm wrong or no ai can be made to run on lisp machine.
mircea_popescu: o for sure, im not even getting into the point of the article. i just went on a tangent for objection reasons, like i do.
mircea_popescu: any computer program of which identifiable components can be unambiguously named is not capable of displaying AI.
mircea_popescu: that thing IS intelligent, just like me and you and the dragonfly.
mircea_popescu: mp's lemma of artificial intelligence requires any computer program that exhibits in fact ai to depend in its functioning on the naming of its functions, and that self-metaprogramming be a part of its working.
mircea_popescu: that's what thought is, entirely, all the time : suggestively named strings.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform but my point is that this argument misses the very point of what thought is.
mircea_popescu: but since the article spoke of "substance" in thought... well...
mircea_popescu: not that any of these subtle considerations have any sort of practical effect or importance,
mircea_popescu: nor, ironically, are actual logic processing machines all that intelligent.
mircea_popescu: and the brain is in no sense and to no degree a logic processing machine.
mircea_popescu: but that doesn't mean they're not the same damned function.
mircea_popescu: if one function returns rnd(0,15) and the other rnd(20,42) it is easy to establish which returns the larger number,
mircea_popescu: undata the argument mind, isn't that some eliza-trees don't make much better looking reality-clothes than others.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform are you a current dreaming it's frying a butterfgly etc
mircea_popescu: so, yeah. all thinkers are eliza, the distinguishing among elizas, like among whores, purely an application of one's own aesthetic preference.
mircea_popescu: you can test them, of course, but this is practically speaking aesthetics.
mircea_popescu: well, the reason might be that there couldn't be such a thing. there's nothing that makes "good science" better than a pile of shanonized papers.
mircea_popescu: what is the method through which i could write software that distinguishes between actual science and global-warming-science ?
mircea_popescu: not every whore is a partner you'd entertain, but that has little to do with the principles involved.
mircea_popescu: undata if you will. asciilifeform yes, essentially, which is why the microscope hammer thing never persuaded me.
mircea_popescu: the ability of whores to distinguish themselves from "those cheap streetwalkers" is not that important globally.
mircea_popescu: if you recognise a naive romanticism in one field, the other should also be obvious.
mircea_popescu: and, obviously, fucking. ie, a manipulation of the subject according to the rules of the reality it inhabits.
mircea_popescu: outside of this, all that's left is eliza-understanding.
mircea_popescu: the sort of understanding you propose is a relationship between mind and object that's transcendental. the ready comparison is the supposed transcendental relation between man and woman.
mircea_popescu: so : your idea of understanding would be in fact "transformative love". ie, it'd give you the ability to turn, if not marble into virgin, at least whore into housewife.
mircea_popescu: let us not discuss this in terms of understanding, something we care about. let us instead discuss in terms of love, something we don't care about.
mircea_popescu: it is NEVER the case anyone ever understood anything whatsoever in any case at any point in human history
mircea_popescu: 'It follows that he cannot know that certain people at certain times do not understand in Parry-or Eliza-like ways. That is to say, he has no way of knowing that we do not ourselves sometimes function by means of "clever tricks".' actually, i will go as far as to say that it is always certainly the case understanding happens through "clever tricks"
mircea_popescu: of course it does, but so ? energy states in a semiconductor also conflict, in the abstract
mircea_popescu: they don't know how to compute whether x option ios better than y option in any situation, but they do know you don't just walk into mordor
mircea_popescu: basically, to teach a muppet something you must construct a literary work which jives with the preexisting dreamworld he inhabits
mircea_popescu: will ONLY learn from fiction, inasmuch as they find a way to link it to their own fiction.
mircea_popescu: imo, they're 4th level learners. will not learn from thought ; nor from other