The problem with Riach’s view is that the final level of complexity is immaterial and the computer is just not going there.
At ScienceDaily: The Purdue researchers originally began questioning the dataset when they could not obtain similar outcomes from their own tests.
You are having an experience reading the vital signs. The dog is having quite a different experience living them. You have all of his data and none of his experience. The dog has none of his data and all of his experience. Suppose you took all that data and instantiated it into a robot. Is the robot having your experience or the dog’s? Or neither, actually?
Gary Smith concludes, “Computers are much better than humans at curve fitting but still far worse at devising models that help us understand and predict the world.”
AI succeeds where the skill required to win is massive calculation and the map IS the territory: Alone in the real world, it is helpless.
To be clear, the basis for Brenner’s confidence is not advances in computer science or neuroscience as such. The basis is that human intelligence originated by accident (“blind fancies”). He is entitled to that opinion but he hasn’t offered evidence for thinking that it is science.
Quantum computers will not solve Silicon Valley’s problem. Quantum computers play by the same rules as digital ones: Meaningful information still requires an interpreter (observer) to relate the map to the territory.
But read the fine print: We would need to run many trials of planets in parallel in order to simulate the real conditions in the universe. Yampolskiy concludes, ‘In fact, depending on some assumptions we make regarding multiverse, quantum aspects of biology, and probabilistic nature of Darwinian algorithm such compute may never be available.’”
Bartlett: “The interesting thing about this paper is that it shows that the principles demonstrated in the 1990s by Wolpert and Macready still have not really sunk in yet. As their “No Free Lunch” theorems point out, there is no universally good search through any search space.
In a still-interesting 2017 paper, Ben Medlock talks about the way life forms self-organize: (which computers don’t, really).
It’s one of the biggest problems in science—and computers are part of the problem.
Eric Holloway looks at the discussions at the Wistar Institute—which fell down the memory hole in 1967—and recovers Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger (1920–1996)’s main point, that you can’t actually get there from here.
Some religions already use robot priests. It has also occurred to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg that Facebook could stand in for churches.
[With respect to mystical experiences,] Most traditional theists would say that we are not talking about what Dr. O’Hara seems to think we are talking about.
Durendal claims to think that his creation is the right sort of religion for humans and robots over the next few millennia.