On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 1:20 AM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*>> I can't conclude a person is not intelligent and conscious just because >> I don't know his motivations, I can't always explain, even to myself, why I >> did what I did other than "I just wanted to" and yet I know for a fact that >> I am conscious and sometimes my actions are slightly more intelligent than >> a rock's actions. And EXACTLY the same thing can be said about an AI; so >> you were wrong when you said we have to understand the motivations of an AI >> before we can say it is intelligent.* > > > *> So if the AI loses every chess game we can say it's unintelligent > without knowing whether it wanted to win?* *The Turing Test is an imperfect tool but it's all we've got to work with; it can prove that something is intelligent but it can never prove that something is unintelligent. A rock might be smarter than Einstein but doesn't like to communicate, Trump might be a genius who's just pretending to be stupid. I'd say both things are about equally likely. * > *Then we're in agreement that consciousness in not just a spandrel,* *No because an Evolutionary Spandrel is a trait that was not selected for by Natural Selection but is the inevitable byproduct of something that was * * > and all things with human level intelligence probably have it.* *Yes, and that's exactly why I believe my fellow human beings are probably conscious, when they are NOT sleeping or under anesthesia or dead, because during those times their actions display human level intelligence.* * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* lnm -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2VJMhq04_fP4gVYHoXmjRK5XpPN2YNtDC-7okQ18az8g%40mail.gmail.com.
