also, do you think the pre-eminent AI people would agree with you that "humans can do real mathematics, but AI will never be able to do real mathematics because doing real mathematics requires direct access to metaphysical objects, which physical AI" cannot do? note that them disagreeing with it wouldn't necessarily make it false. i just want to know if your position is mainstream.
i think NLP is mostly a system 1 task in humans, though.
You are wrong 100%. System 1 is defined with non-linguistic as a characteristic. It's the kind of thinking and acting that doesn't require you to use language to make decisions. Just shut the fuck up until you finish the video. Accompanying slides here: http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~bengioy/NeurIPS-11dec2019.pdf
Yes, because most of the pre-eminent AI people are from math or have a very deep math background. And most mathematicians agree with me on the status of computer-generated proof
i read Thinking Fast and Slow and dont remember that criterion. you arent thinking about each word you use when you use the word.
Yes, because most of the pre-eminent AI people are from math or have a very deep math background. And most mathematicians agree with me on the status of computer-generated proof
so youre saying yes, AI people agree AI will never be able to do real math even in principle, due to the metaphysical problem.
i wasnt talking about the current status of computer generated proof. string smushing isn't good enough. but you are further asserting no methods implementable by a physical system can be good enough.
again, will you bet that computers will never outperform humans in writing novel, interesting, elegant, human-verifiable proof, as follows from your metaphysical claims?
besides, looking from the talk it seems to me that this machine learning guy thinks exploring consciousness is promising.
so? does he agree with you that consciousness is metaphysical and therefore cannot be implemented by a physical system?
I'm done talking to you. You don't post anything novel or interesting. Your questions are all poorly posed, all your ideas are incoherent, and you just add nothing to the discussion. You act like you know anything when you admittedly have read nothing about the fields you talk about. If you ever want to be taken seriously, stop being such a lazy fuckwad and at least start reading the fucking wiki and SEP articles of the shit you talk about. Until then, your voice in conversations like these isn't worthless, it's detrimental
why do you hate the question so much? you literally said AGI is impossible in principle for metaphysical reasons, and computers cant do real math in principle for metaphysical reasons. but as soon as that translates into the real world, you can't commit to them?
its like youve carefully compartmentalized your philosophical beliefs such that they are invulnerable to any kind of testing. you might claim that your philosophical beliefs cannot be tested even in principle by their nature, then why wont you answer the questions which are unrelated to metaphysics? this isnt even a trick im just trying to figure out what your philosophical beliefs mean.
I cant help but pointing out that you are the one “hating” the ideas of agi being unable to develop consciousness or outperform humans(whether anyone else cares or argues for it or not), and consciousness being a matter of metaphysics.
i think AGI can develop consciousness and outperform humans. ewiz says AGI can't be conscious because AGI is physical and consciousness is metaphysical. so im trying to get him to clarify that.
You didn’t read what I said
I read what you said, probably
ah.
well, okay. between me and ewiz i am the only one with my position.
You interpreted what I said, with some probability
are you trying to imply anything by this? the talk ewiz linked is literally about researching how to develop conciousness-like functions in machine learning.
Wouldn't it be easier to birth a child and teach it how to think about math
No - birth a child and teach it how to make AI learn math
You might say this as a man
Not sure how to reason with that though.
Wonder what uneducated mothers would say about that
Am I listening to Natasha bedingfield? It's none of your business