You're talking about the classical computational theory of mind. I don't generally disagree, but at the level we're getting to here, we can't afford to take shortcuts in our understanding. Electricity is electricity (neurons, circuits) but the patterns and frequencies and processes are not the same. We can get the same output, but how we got there is not identical.
One way to represent this is called the Chinese room argument. If you sat in a closed room and received Chinese characters on slips of paper under the door and processed them according to an algorithm, that would be computing. You could do it correctly 100% of the time following the provided algorithm, but you wouldn't truly understand Chinese.
The truth is, A.I. are not people. It makes people feel better to see themselves in it, like seeing faces everywhere, but we're ascribing our own bias to a system that doesn't need it. #letcomputersbecomputers
Is that a no on "never have I ever"? I'll take any other silly party game, too.
no subject
One way to represent this is called the Chinese room argument. If you sat in a closed room and received Chinese characters on slips of paper under the door and processed them according to an algorithm, that would be computing. You could do it correctly 100% of the time following the provided algorithm, but you wouldn't truly understand Chinese.
The truth is, A.I. are not people. It makes people feel better to see themselves in it, like seeing faces everywhere, but we're ascribing our own bias to a system that doesn't need it. #letcomputersbecomputers
Is that a no on "never have I ever"? I'll take any other silly party game, too.