"I need something more than the auto-genesis of machine intelligence -- give me chimps!"
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness @HopefulAbandon and
You could build the world’s most accurate and totalizing automated McDonald’s, it’ll never been anything but an automated McDonald’s. I don’t see the qualitative leap at all, let alone a qualitative leap than lands at anything but mimesis.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @Outsideness and
Of course that self-generating automated McDonalds would be practicing self-cultivation, just not in any sense that matters without a subject.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @Outsideness and
I think your disagreement might be less on the ends of an automated mcdonalds and more on the ends of a human-facing one
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HopefulAbandon @Outsideness and
My disagreement is that I don’t see a meaningful end for any human independent natural system.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @HopefulAbandon and
Immanent intelligence optimization.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @HopefulAbandon and
Right, but that doesn’t rationally attach to any sort of valuation without becoming self-same with human intelligence of absolute abstraction—or angelic intelligence, to sidestep the question of chimps—and that doesn’t cohere on a theoretical level as far as I can tell
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @HopefulAbandon and
Intellectual intuition is exactly what humans DON'T have, in the Kantian insight that defines Western thought according to Mou Zongsan. If immanent intelligence optimization is going to happen, something else is going to have to do it.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @HopefulAbandon and
Zongsan is claiming that Kant and the post enlightenment west are wrong, if I’m not mistaken, and I agree—or at least argue some things can be seen in themselves as a whole, even if there exists a transcendental nuominous object.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @Outsideness and
Granting Kant’s terms thought I don’t see how machines would have more capacity for intuition than humans—humans can abstract representations of noumena through sensibility, machines seem to be categorically limited to doing math problems about those representations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Machines can potentially directly self-improve. Humans are blocked from thinking their way to better brains.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness @HopefulAbandon and
Well the question is *can* machines improve beyond their relative perfections (in the Aristotelian sense)—I have no reason to think they can gain anything but a heuristic simulation of abstraction or, to grant the kantian account for the sake of argument, sensibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Ab__Elba @Outsideness and
And that simulation, like all simulations, is only even heuristic in service to those who actually can abstract (or sense). Someone else’s definition of heuristic adequacy
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.