That paragraph is just saying that AGI is possible in principle and that current research might eventually lead there, even though it might take "a hundred or a thousand years" (previous paragraph)?
-
-
Replying to @xuenay @slatestarcodex
If that were the point of the article, it wouldn’t need any examples. Instead he makes a lot of very strong claims about understanding, learning, thinking, reasoning, and knowledge, which are completely false.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @slatestarcodex
It wouldn't need any examples to convince *you*, but the many people who think that AGI is impossible even in principle would be unlikely to be persuaded without any new examples. Also, what strong claims?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @xuenay @slatestarcodex
This ascribes thinking, attempting, and invention to a program that is definitely not captof any of those things.pic.twitter.com/IoSvyxs5bh
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @slatestarcodex
People routinely use those words for describing all kinds of things they know are not capable of them. I've said my phone "is confused about where it is" when it lost its GPS signal. Intentional language doesn't imply belief in human equivalence.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @xuenay @slatestarcodex
But afaict Scott is very deliberately asserting that equivalence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If his essay was “wow, it’s amusing to pretend that this spam generator is really thinking, although clearly it isn’t in the least!” everyone’s reaction would be “I guess if that makes you happy, whatever”
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @slatestarcodex
I don't really see why you would want to interpret Scott as making stronger claims than as if he was just using intentional language in the normal way? If the normal meanings of words get a more reasonable text than unusual meanings, then go for the standard meaning?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @xuenay @slatestarcodex
First, this is not the normal way; the normal use of "thinking" is to denote thinking. In context "the dishwasher thinks it's finished, but actually the motor is stuck" is perfectly understandable but is a metaphorical and humorous extension.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Second, Scott very densely attributes mental actions to the program. He's an excellent writer, and if he didn't intend those to be literal, he would anticipate that some readers would take them as literal, and explicitly forestall that misunderstanding.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Third, if the content of the article were "oh, look, what this program does can be humorously misinterpreted as mental, in the same way you attribute thoughts to a dishwasher," it would be obviously pointless, and Scott doesn't do that.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @slatestarcodex
Maybe disagreement here is that I don't even know what the literal meaning of terms like "think" *is*. You seem to feel that "think" refers to some specific way in which humans think. I don't know how they do, to me it just means something like "process information".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
So when you say "if Scott didn't intend them to be read literally" I notice I'm confused, since to me the intentional reading *is* the literal meaning.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 14 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.