Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When people like Lanier allow themselves the luxury of positing
infinitely large computers (who else do we know who does this? Ah, yes,
the AIXI folks), they can make infinitely unlikely coincidences happen.
It is a commonly accepted practice to use Turing machines in proofs, even
though we can't actually build one.
So? That was not the practice that I condemned.
My problem is with people like Hutter or Lanier using thought
experiments in which the behavior of quasi-infinite computers is treated
as if it were a meaningful thing in the real universe.
There is a world of difference between that and using Turing machines in
proofs.
Hutter is not proposing a universal
solution to AI. He is proving that it is not computable.
He is doing nothing of the sort. As I stated in the quote above, he is
drawing a meaningless conclusion by introducing a quasi-infinite
computation into his proof: when people try to make claims about the
real world (i.e. claims about what "artificial intelligence" is) by
postulating machines with quasi-infinite amounts of computation going on
inside them, they can get anything to happen.
Lanier is not
suggesting implementing consciousness as a rainstorm. He is refuting its
existence.
And you missed what I said about Lanier, apparently.
He refuted nothing. He showed that with a quasi-infinite computer in
his thought experiment, he can make a coincidence happen.
Big deal.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
singularity
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
