this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)

SneerClub

1207 readers
2 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

See our twin at Reddit

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

much more sneerclub than techtakes

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chaos@beehaw.org -2 points 1 week ago (23 children)

One needn’t go as far as souls anyway. Jefferson’s hypothesis—that there is some electrochemical basis to thought—is sufficient to solve the problem. Were it true, the reason computers seem fundamentally blocked from progress on the Turing Test would amount to the fact that they are wholly mechanical objects, while “thought” is as much a biological function as “digestion” or “copulation.”

Even if true, why couldn't the electrochemical processes be simulated too? I don't think it's necessary to strictly and completely reproduce a biological brain to produce thought in a computer, but even if it is, it's "just" a matter of scale. If you can increase the fidelity of the simulation with effectively infinite computing power, what would it be missing? It'd have to be something that can't be predicted, can't even have its unpredictability described with an equation (I don't know what any coin flip will turn up as, but I do know how to write a program that produces indistinguishable results from a real coin for a simulation), so it's just changing all the time and follows no rules whatsoever, but also you can't just write a program that does its own "random crap that can't be predicted" simulation because the real one is somehow also so precise that it's the only thing that makes consciousness work and a mechanical one isn't good enough?

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 11 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Philosophically, right, if you allow me infinite resources, right, to do a thing I don't actually know how to define,

[–] scruiser@awful.systems 5 points 1 week ago

It's not infinite! If you take my cherry picked estimate of the computational power of the human brain, you'll see we're just one more round of scaling to have matched the human brain, and then we're sure to have AGI ~~and make our shareholders immense profits~~! Just one more scaling, bro!

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)