Just because you can’t make a mathematical proof doesn’t mean you don’t understand the very simple truth of the statement.
If I can’t prove it, I don’t know how I can claim to understand it.
It’s axiomatic that equality is symmetric. It’s also axiomatic that 1+1=2. There is not a whole lot to understand. I have memorized that. Actually, having now thought about this for a bit, I think I can prove it.
What makes the difference between a human learning these things and an AI being trained for them?
I think if I could describe that, I might actually have solved the problem of strong AI.
Then how will you know the difference between strong AI and not-strong AI?
Then how will you know the difference between strong AI and not-strong AI?
I’ve already stated that that is a problem:
From a previous answer to you:
Obviously the Turing test doesn’t cut it, which I suspected already back then. And I’m sure when we finally have a self aware conscious AI, it will be debated violently.
Because I don’t think we have a sure methodology.
I think therefore I am, is only good for the conscious mind itself.
I can’t prove that other people are conscious, although I’m 100% confident they are.
In exactly the same way we can’t prove when we have a conscious AI.
But we may be able to prove that it is NOT conscious, which I think is clearly the case with current level AI. Although you don’t accept the example I provided, I believe it is clear evidence of lack of a consciousness behind the high level of intelligence it clearly has.
Just because you can’t make a mathematical proof doesn’t mean you don’t understand the very simple truth of the statement.
I think if I could describe that, I might actually have solved the problem of strong AI.
You are asking unreasonable questions.
If I can’t prove it, I don’t know how I can claim to understand it.
It’s axiomatic that equality is symmetric. It’s also axiomatic that 1+1=2. There is not a whole lot to understand. I have memorized that. Actually, having now thought about this for a bit, I think I can prove it.
What makes the difference between a human learning these things and an AI being trained for them?
Then how will you know the difference between strong AI and not-strong AI?
I’ve already stated that that is a problem:
From a previous answer to you:
Because I don’t think we have a sure methodology.
I think therefore I am, is only good for the conscious mind itself.
I can’t prove that other people are conscious, although I’m 100% confident they are.
In exactly the same way we can’t prove when we have a conscious AI.
But we may be able to prove that it is NOT conscious, which I think is clearly the case with current level AI. Although you don’t accept the example I provided, I believe it is clear evidence of lack of a consciousness behind the high level of intelligence it clearly has.