Consciousness is entirely overrated, it doesn’t mean anything important at all. An ai just needs logic, reasoning and a goal to effectively change things. Solving consciousness will do nothing of practical value, it will be entirely philosophical.
Reasoning literally requires consciousness because it’s a fundamentally normative process. What computers do isn’t reasoning. It’s following instructions.
Okay, we can create the illusion of thought by executing complicated instructions. But there’s still a difference between a machine that does what it’s told and one that thinks for itself. The fact that it might be crazy is irrelevant, since we don’t know how to make it, at all, crazy or not.
The discussion is over whether we can create an AGI. An AGI is an inorganic mind of some sort. We don’t need to make an AGI. I personally don’t care. The question was can we? The answer is No.
Your definition of AGI as doing “jobs” is arbitrary, since the concept of “a job” is made up; literally anything can count as economic labor.
For instance, people frequently discuss AGI replacing governments. That would require the capacity for leadership. It would require independence of thought and creative deliberation. We simply cannot list (let alone program) all human goals and values. It is logically impossible to axiomatize our value systems. The values would need to be intuited. This is a very famous result in mathematics called Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem.
To quote Gödel himself: “We cannot mechanize all of our intuitions.”
Alan Turing drew the same conclusion a few years later with The Halting Problem.
In other words, if we want to build a machine that shares our value system, we will need to do so in such a way that it can figure out our values for itself. How? Well, presumably by being conscious. I would be happy if we could do so without its being conscious, but that’s my point: nobody knows how. Nobody even knows where to begin to guess how. That’s why AGI is so problematic.
Jobs are not arbitrary, they’re tasks humans want another human to accomplish, an agi could accomplish all of those that a human can.
For instance, people frequently discuss AGI replacing governments. That would require the capacity for leadership. It would require independence of thought and creative deliberation. We simply cannot list (let alone program) all human goals and values. It is logically impossible to axiomatize our value systems. The values would need to be intuited. This is a very famous result in mathematics called Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem
Why do you assume we have to? Even a shitty current ai can do a decent job at this if you fact check it, better than a lot of modern politicians. Feed it the entire internet and let it figure out what humans value, why would we manually do this?
In other words, if we want to build a machine that shares our value system, we will need to do so in such a way that it can figure out our values for itself. How? Well, presumably by being conscious. I would be happy if we could do so without its being conscious, but that’s my point: nobody knows how. Nobody even knows where to begin to guess how. That’s why AGI is so problematic.
humans are conscious and have gotten no closer to doing this, ever, I see no reason to believe consciousness will help at all with this matter.
A philosophical zombie still gets its work done, I fundamentally disagree that this distinction is economically meaningful. A simulation of reasoning isn’t meaningfully different.
That’s fine, but most people (engaged in this discussion) aren’t interested in an illusion. When they say AGI, they mean an actual mind capable of rationality (which requires sensitivity and responsiveness to reasons).
Calculators, LLMs, and toasters can’t think or understand or reason by definition, because they can only do what they’re told. An AGI would be a construct that can think for itself. Like a human mind, but maybe more powerful. That requires subjective understanding (intuitions) that cannot be programmed. For more details on why, see Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. We can’t even axiomatize mathematics, let alone human intuitions about the world at large. Even if it’s possible we simply don’t know how.
If it quacks like a duck it changes the entire global economy and can potentially destroy humanity. All while you go “ah but it’s not really reasoning.”
what difference does it make if it can do the same intellectual labor as a human? If I tell it to cure cancer and it does will you then say “but who would want yet another machine that just does what we say?”
your point reads like complete psuedointellectual nonsense to me. How is that economically valuable? Why are you asserting most people care about that and not the part where it cures a disease when we ask it to?
A malfunctioning nuke can also destroy humanity. So could a toaster, under the right circumstances.
The question is not whether we can create a machine that can destroy humanity. (Yes.) Or cure cancer. (Maybe.) The question is whether we can create a machine that can think. (No.)
What I was discussing earlier in this thread was whether we (scientists) can build an AGI. Not whether we can create something that looks like an AGI, or whether there’s an economic incentive to do so. None of that has any bearing.
In English, the phrase “what most people mean when they say” idiomatically translates to something like “what I and others engaged in this specific discussion mean when we say.” It’s not a claim about how the general population would respond to a poll.
We are discussing whether creating an AGI is possible, not whether humans can tell the difference (which is a separate question).
Most people can’t identify a correct mathematical equation from an incorrect one, especially when the solution is irrelevant to their lives. Does that mean that doing mathematics correctly “doesn’t matter?” It would be weird to enter a mathematical forum and ask “Why does it matter?”
Whether we can build an AGI is just a curious question, whose answer for now is No.
P.S. defining AGI in economic terms is like defining CPU in economic terms: pointless. What is “economically important labor”? Arguably the most economically important labor is giving birth, raising your children, and supporting your family. So would an AGI be some sort of inorganic uterus as well as a parent and a lover? Lol.
That’s a pretty tall order, if AGI also has to do philosophy, politics, and science. All fields that require the capacity for rational deliberation and independent thought, btw.
Most people can’t identify a correct mathematical equation from an incorrect one
this is irrelevant, we’re talking about something where nobody can tell the difference, not where it’s difficult.
What is “economically important labor”? Arguably the most economically important labor is giving birth, raising your children, and supporting your family. So would an AGI be some sort of inorganic uterus as well as a parent and a lover? Lol.
it means a job. That’s obviously not a job and obviously not what is meant, an interesting strategy from one who just used “what most people mean when they say”
That’s a pretty tall order, if AGI also has to do philosophy, politics, and science. All fields that require the capacity for rational deliberation and independent thought, btw.
it just has to be at least as good as a human at manipulating the world to achieve its goals, I don’t know of any other definition of agi that factors in actually meaningful tasks
an agi should be able to do almost any task a human can do at a computer. It doesn’t have to be conscious and I have no idea why or where consciousness factors into the equation.
Consciousness is entirely overrated, it doesn’t mean anything important at all. An ai just needs logic, reasoning and a goal to effectively change things. Solving consciousness will do nothing of practical value, it will be entirely philosophical.
Reasoning literally requires consciousness because it’s a fundamentally normative process. What computers do isn’t reasoning. It’s following instructions.
Reasoning is approximated enough with matrix math and filter algorithms.
It can fly drones, dodge wrenches.
The AGI that escapes wont be the ideal philosopher king, it will be the sociopathic teenage rebel.
Okay, we can create the illusion of thought by executing complicated instructions. But there’s still a difference between a machine that does what it’s told and one that thinks for itself. The fact that it might be crazy is irrelevant, since we don’t know how to make it, at all, crazy or not.
Being able to decide its own goals is a completely unimportant aspect of the problem.
why do you care?
The discussion is over whether we can create an AGI. An AGI is an inorganic mind of some sort. We don’t need to make an AGI. I personally don’t care. The question was can we? The answer is No.
You’ve arbitrarily defined an agi by its consciousness instead of its capabilities.
Your definition of AGI as doing “jobs” is arbitrary, since the concept of “a job” is made up; literally anything can count as economic labor.
For instance, people frequently discuss AGI replacing governments. That would require the capacity for leadership. It would require independence of thought and creative deliberation. We simply cannot list (let alone program) all human goals and values. It is logically impossible to axiomatize our value systems. The values would need to be intuited. This is a very famous result in mathematics called Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem.
To quote Gödel himself: “We cannot mechanize all of our intuitions.”
Alan Turing drew the same conclusion a few years later with The Halting Problem.
In other words, if we want to build a machine that shares our value system, we will need to do so in such a way that it can figure out our values for itself. How? Well, presumably by being conscious. I would be happy if we could do so without its being conscious, but that’s my point: nobody knows how. Nobody even knows where to begin to guess how. That’s why AGI is so problematic.
Jobs are not arbitrary, they’re tasks humans want another human to accomplish, an agi could accomplish all of those that a human can.
Why do you assume we have to? Even a shitty current ai can do a decent job at this if you fact check it, better than a lot of modern politicians. Feed it the entire internet and let it figure out what humans value, why would we manually do this?
humans are conscious and have gotten no closer to doing this, ever, I see no reason to believe consciousness will help at all with this matter.
A philosophical zombie still gets its work done, I fundamentally disagree that this distinction is economically meaningful. A simulation of reasoning isn’t meaningfully different.
That’s fine, but most people (engaged in this discussion) aren’t interested in an illusion. When they say AGI, they mean an actual mind capable of rationality (which requires sensitivity and responsiveness to reasons).
Calculators, LLMs, and toasters can’t think or understand or reason by definition, because they can only do what they’re told. An AGI would be a construct that can think for itself. Like a human mind, but maybe more powerful. That requires subjective understanding (intuitions) that cannot be programmed. For more details on why, see Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. We can’t even axiomatize mathematics, let alone human intuitions about the world at large. Even if it’s possible we simply don’t know how.
If it quacks like a duck it changes the entire global economy and can potentially destroy humanity. All while you go “ah but it’s not really reasoning.”
what difference does it make if it can do the same intellectual labor as a human? If I tell it to cure cancer and it does will you then say “but who would want yet another machine that just does what we say?”
your point reads like complete psuedointellectual nonsense to me. How is that economically valuable? Why are you asserting most people care about that and not the part where it cures a disease when we ask it to?
A malfunctioning nuke can also destroy humanity. So could a toaster, under the right circumstances.
The question is not whether we can create a machine that can destroy humanity. (Yes.) Or cure cancer. (Maybe.) The question is whether we can create a machine that can think. (No.)
What I was discussing earlier in this thread was whether we (scientists) can build an AGI. Not whether we can create something that looks like an AGI, or whether there’s an economic incentive to do so. None of that has any bearing.
In English, the phrase “what most people mean when they say” idiomatically translates to something like “what I and others engaged in this specific discussion mean when we say.” It’s not a claim about how the general population would respond to a poll.
Hope that helps!
If there’s no way to tell the illusion from reality, tell me why it matters functionally at all.
what difference does true thought make from the illusion?
also agi means something that can do all economically important labor, it has nothing to do with what you said and that’s not a common definition.
Matter to whom?
We are discussing whether creating an AGI is possible, not whether humans can tell the difference (which is a separate question).
Most people can’t identify a correct mathematical equation from an incorrect one, especially when the solution is irrelevant to their lives. Does that mean that doing mathematics correctly “doesn’t matter?” It would be weird to enter a mathematical forum and ask “Why does it matter?”
Whether we can build an AGI is just a curious question, whose answer for now is No.
P.S. defining AGI in economic terms is like defining CPU in economic terms: pointless. What is “economically important labor”? Arguably the most economically important labor is giving birth, raising your children, and supporting your family. So would an AGI be some sort of inorganic uterus as well as a parent and a lover? Lol.
That’s a pretty tall order, if AGI also has to do philosophy, politics, and science. All fields that require the capacity for rational deliberation and independent thought, btw.
this is irrelevant, we’re talking about something where nobody can tell the difference, not where it’s difficult.
it means a job. That’s obviously not a job and obviously not what is meant, an interesting strategy from one who just used “what most people mean when they say”
it just has to be at least as good as a human at manipulating the world to achieve its goals, I don’t know of any other definition of agi that factors in actually meaningful tasks
an agi should be able to do almost any task a human can do at a computer. It doesn’t have to be conscious and I have no idea why or where consciousness factors into the equation.