The article is assuming that the only methods available are simplified, toy circuit like examples and carefully constructed thought experiments. I did not see anything in there that couldn’t have been written in the early 1990s, although admittedly I skimmed after reading five or six very familiar examples. A breakthrough in methodology took place with “deep learning”. … …I still feel it as kind of a cheaters approach… … but that’s the old reductionist in me reasserting itself. The method of starting with a strong model and then approaching that model does make having good ground truth assessments more valuable because they are at the core. (see dangerous facial recognition flaws of non-white people as an example of that approach that can lead to extreme biasing that looks all too human of a flaw) I don’t think we will end up with an objectively perfect consciousness in this way. but a functional consciousness? i think so.

The article is assuming that the only methods available are simplified, toy circuit like examples and carefully constructed thought experiments.

I did not see anything in there that couldn’t have been written in the early 1990s, although admittedly I skimmed after reading five or six very familiar examples.

A breakthrough in methodology took place with “deep learning”. …

…I still feel it as kind of a cheaters approach…

… but that’s the old reductionist in me reasserting itself.

The method of starting with a strong model and then approaching that model does make having good ground truth assessments more valuable because they are at the core.

(see dangerous facial recognition flaws of non-white people as an example of that approach that can lead to extreme biasing that looks all too human of a flaw)

I don’t think we will end up with an objectively perfect consciousness in this way.

but a functional consciousness? i think so.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ four = 12

Leave a Reply