From: Vladimir Nesov (robotact@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Nov 10 2007 - 13:46:58 MST
Not necessarily - soul can be functionally unnecessary even if you
believe in its existence. AGI is only required to exhibit intelligent
functional behavior, it doesn't need to have a soul or consciousness
even if these things exist in humans. Also one can't show that
intelligence requires a black box - only exploration of whole design
space can show that, and we are far from being able to do that.
On 11/10/07, Алексей Турчин <avturchin@mail.ru> wrote:
> The only way we can proove that AI is really impossible - is to show that intelligense requiers 'black box' soul.
>
> And it is not a quantuum copmputer, because we can create and understand quantuum copmputers. (But it could be qualias.)
>
> So if any academic said that he don''t belive in AI, it means that he beleives in soul. So we could point him on this alternative and ask to choose.
>
> Alexey Turchin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Hanson <rhanson@gmu.edu>
> To: sl4@sl4.org
> Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 06:26:23 -0500
> Subject: What best evidence for fast AI?
>
> >
> > I've been invited to write an article for an upcoming special issue of
> > IEEE Spectrum on "Singularity", which in this context means
> > rapid and large social change from human-level or higher artificial
> > intelligence. I may be among the most enthusiastic authors in
> > that issue, but even I am somewhat skeptical. Specifically,
> > after ten years as an AI researcher, my inclination has been to see
> > progress as very slow toward an explicitly-coded AI, and so to guess that
> > the whole brain emulation approach would succeed first if, as it seems,
> > that approach becomes feasible within the next century.
> > But I want to try to make sure I've heard the best arguments on the other
> > side, and my impression was that many people here expect more rapid AI
> > progress. So I am here to ask: where are the best analyses
> > arguing the case for rapid (non-emulation) AI progress? I am
> > less interested in the arguments that convince you personally than
> > arguments that can or should convince a wide academic audience.
> > Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu
> > http://hanson.gmu.edu
> > Research Associate, Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford
> > University
> > Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
> > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
> > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
> >
> >
> >
>
> Посетите мой Живой Журнал www.livejournal.com/users/turchin - и узнайте то, что я думаю прямо сейчас - и ещё то, что хотел сказать вам, но не успел :)
>
-- Vladimir Nesov mailto:robotact@gmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:00 MDT