How long these two dorks will be able to convince everybody AGI can emerge from a Turing machine given enough computational speed?
>>16548048after about three years it should be obvious this """AI""" shit has peaked
>>16548048is AI a jew/pajeet project? are there any white people involved?
>>16548048>Turing machineneural networks are analog not binary/digital
>>16550892you are nitpicking, I am sure we can digitize everything and nobody will be able to tell the difference
>>16551029as long as theory of operation and speed/order is the same my guess you'd have a similar consciousness to a human. but we're nowhere near running a human on different hardware.problem with classical touring machines/digital computers is they're deterministic. brains aren't.the "muh digital computer can't be conscious" is either shortsighted either specifically used to shill religious ideas
There will be a reckoning of the American/global economy. I don't know if it will be a planned demolition or just total disaster. I don't know when it will happen. But this shit can't go on forever. Tech and finance were already deeply fake and gay (in GDP terms and otherwise), and "AI" is the shit-filled cherry on top. Without AI we would already be circling the drain. But the promises of AI cannot be delivered, because
>>16550892This simply is irrelevant. There is no non-turing operation performed on these computers. Your conscious AI bro is a stack of punch cards.
these two dorks have a lot of help from the "rationalist" cultists
>>16551751>on these computersdon't care what they do now. analog computing can go into non-turing territory. https://www.eetimes.com/analog-computer-trumps-turing-model/https://theputnamprogram.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/non-turing-computing/
>>16553616>1998Come on now
>>16548048AGI is a turing complete machine
>>16548048intelligence? probably, but the diminishing-gains thing might fuck it up. pretty close tho.consciousness? nah.Consciousness and intelligence aren't joined by the hip, a fact that has really surprised me.
>>16551043>problem with classical touring machines/digital computers is they're deterministic. brains aren't.Speaking of religion, this reminds me of the time someone said, "God doesn't play dice."
Is chatGPT even *close* to being a fucking AGI? No! Are you kidding? Sure, it more or less passes the turing test. That was the previous benchmark for an "AI", but that is nowhere close to being an AGI. chatGPT is dependent on thousands of people and is carefully managed, not the other way around.
>>16554946Here is another thing. Has chatGPT contributed an iota of useful knowledge to the human race? No. It's seen millions of discussions on calculus so it can mimic answering a calculus problem, but ask it how many R's are in the word strawberry, which it has seen billions of times, and it might get it wrong. There is your AGI.
