Discussion about this post

User's avatar
flipshod's avatar

Excellent article (and the Huxley is good too, so thanks for that as well).

I have no idea whether this point is really five years away or will always be five years away. I hope it comes because I want to see it.

I'm also glad to learn that Wittgenstein has not been entirely refuted but rather built upon. It seems like Wittgenstein's broadest ideas will still remain after this point arrives. It might not be understandable to us mere humans, but it will still exist for the machines (is my uneducated guess).

Expand full comment
Thoughts About Stuff's avatar

If a painting of an imaginary apple is done so accurately and competently that an observer can't tell it's not a photo of a real apple, does that mean that the painting is indeed of a real apple? When the Mechanical Turk fooled observers into thinking it was a machine rather than a human, does that mean that it really was only a machine and not human? If a trans-sexual uses make-up and clothing and practiced behaviours to successfully fool bystanders into thinking he is a woman, does that mean he really is a woman?

This is what is being claimed when people argue that an artificial simulation of thinking must be the result of real thinking just because the simulation is good enough to fool people. The success of a deception does not alter the subvenient reality.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts