Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Artificial Intelligence

Bill Dembski on how a new book expertly dissects doomsday scenarios

Dembski: "At the end of the discussion, however, Kurzweil's overweening confidence in the glowing prospects for strong AI's future were undiminished. And indeed, they remain undiminished to this day (I last saw Kurzweil at a Seattle tech conference in 2019 — age seemed to have mellowed his person but not his views)." But Larson says it's all nonsense. Read More ›

At Scientific American: Why we live in a simulation

This is likely intended as a spoof: "There is nothing in philosophy or science, no postulates, theories or laws, that would predict the emergence of this experience we call consciousness. Natural laws do not call for its existence, and it certainly does not seem to offer us any evolutionary advantages." But it happens to be true. Read More ›

Can cryogenics (freezing at death) preserve memories or consciousness?

The question cryogenics of the connectome raises is, can we freeze and then recover consciousness itself as opposed to simply saving imprints of a person’s memories? Dr. Frankenstein is now taking your calls. Read More ›

Eric Holloway: Is AI the next stage of evolution?

Holloway: The complex organization of energy we humans see around us in our verdant fertile nest is enormously atypical. This fundamental law drives right through the heart of any technology, genetic or otherwise, that we might invent … Read More ›

Sabine Hossenfelder explains why she thinks that the computer sim universe is pseudoscience

Hossenfelder: You can approximate the laws that we know with a computer simulation – we do this all the time – but if that was how nature actually worked, we could see the difference. Indeed, physicists have looked for signs that natural laws really proceed step by step, like in a computer code, but their search has come up empty handed. Read More ›

A Twitter mob made a mistake when it went after an AI industry giant

Pedro Domingos: In my confrontation with the AI cancel crowd, I was particularly helped by the fact that several of the ringleaders are (or call themselves) professional AI ethicists. Some of them are even well-known within their field. When they serially engaged in childish and unethical behavior in full view of their colleagues, they did my job for me. Read More ›

Claims for random evolution overlook the fact that life needs software as well as hardware

Richard W. Stevens points out that a bird does not fly just because it has wings; it needs a Explanations of the evolution of flight do not account for that.“flight” program in its brain. Read More ›

Can we teach a computer to feel things? A dialogue…

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? Read More ›

Artificial intelligence cannot produce a Theory of Everything

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.” Read More ›

A neuroscientist on why we can build human-like brains, thanks to the accidental cosmos

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. Read More ›