From: garym@mcgath.com   
      
   On 10/11/24 7:48 AM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:   
   > Gary McGath  wrote:   
   >> I don't think "human-level machine intelligence" is meaningful,   
   >> because computation to carry out tasks and cognition to further the   
   >> existence of a living organism aren't commensurable.   
   >   
   > I'm not convinced of that.  Nobody has come up with a task that a   
   > person could do but that no computer could ever do.  There are tasks   
   > that it's been proven computers can't do, but no person has proven   
   > able to do them either.   
      
   You left out the part of my post where I said that carrying out tasks   
   isn't the point. Human (and animal) intelligence is a faculty for   
   maintaining and enhancing the life of which it is a part. We might be   
   able to create machines whose prime directive is to survive, reproduce,   
   and maximize their satisfaction (though I don't know what that would   
   mean in a machine designed and created by humans), but it would be a bad   
   idea.   
   >   
   > So I think it's not at all unlikely that computers, some of them in   
   > humanoid robot bodies, will someday be able to do every task that   
   > a person can do, better and less expensively.  At that point the   
   > unemployment rate will increase to 100%.  Those who don't own stock   
   > in the AI companies will have financial problems.   
      
   You're overlooking the principle of comparative advantage. People in   
   such a world wouldn't sit around and wait for the machines to feed them.   
   They'd do the things at which they're relatively best, while machines   
   would do the tasks which they're relatively best at.   
   >   
   > Or, of course, the intelligent machines may decide we're a nuisance,   
   > and wipe us out.   
   >   
   > A third category is uploaded people, i.e. human consciousnesses copied   
   > into a computer.  Simply completely map a human brain and then emulate   
   > it in software.  It would of course have the same memories and   
   > personality as the original person.  By cranking up the clock   
   > frequency, it could work must faster than us flesh people, get a   
   > full night's sleep in a few seconds, or a lengthy vacation in a few   
   > minutes.  And it could work for much less income, since it could   
   > enjoy realistic virtual entertainments.  It would be potentially   
   > immortal.  Or at least last as long as our civilization.   
      
   The key word there is "emulate." They wouldn't be people. At a minimum,   
   they'd need to have human-equivalent bodies to keep the same   
   personalities; otherwise they'd have different needs and different ways   
   of interacting with the world, and so would diverge from human attitudes.   
      
   --   
   Gary McGath    http://www.mcgath.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)