There are a lot of responses to the philosophical zombie argument. Some of which cut it off at the legs (they don't know to aim for the head! sorry bad pun). For instance some, like those descended from the work of Wittgenstein, argue that it relies on an inside-mental vs. outside-body type of model, and by offering a convincing alternative, the entire premise of the skeptical position the zombie argument embodies, is dissolved as irrelevant. (I'll add that the AGI argument, often also relies on a similar inside outside model, but that'd take a lot longer to write out.) My point being, the zombie argument isn't some checkmate most people think it is.
Right, if you setup the intelligence and the brain to be computational in nature of course they will appear seamlessly computational.
But there are obvious human elements that don't fit into that model, yet which fundamentally make up how we understand human intelligence. Things like imagination, the ability to think new thoughts; or the fact that we are agents sensitive to reasons, that we can decide in a way that computers cannot, that we do not merely end indecision. We can also say that humans understand something, which doesn't make any sense for a computer beyond anthropomorphism.
> If intelligence is actually just information processing, then a computer intelligence really is doing exactly what our brains are doing. It’s misdirection to characterise it as modelling it.
Sure, but if it's not, then it's not. The assumption still stands.
> Basically what I'm trying to say is how can anyone who believes the brain is purely physical (not spiritual), believe that we just simply cannot achieve human-level intelligence by machine (no matter how complex the machine gets).
Obviously the brain is physical. But is consciousness? Is consciousness a thing in a physical sense, or an "experience", or something like a collection of powers and abilities? The two poles in the argument aren't between physical machine or religious spiritualism. There are other options, alternative positions that don't rely on Cartesian demons at the wheel, or souls, or even an inside-mental vs. outside-body distinction.
One thing my initial comment was pointing out was that the argument in favour of AGI, and which you're presenting, relies on an assumption: that computational intelligence, what you might describe as the intelligence of machines, is the same as the intelligence of humans. But that is just an assumption when you get down to it based on a particular kind of model of human intelligence. There are certain logical consequences of that assumption, and I've just pointed some out as probable roadblocks to getting to AGI from there. Many of those alternative positions, a lot from philosophy of mind, have raised those exact critical arguments.
> I’m afraid all those arguments boil down to “we don’t know how to do it yet, therefore it can’t be done”, which is absurd.
I'm not saying that. What I'm pointing out is that most arguments in favour of AGI rely on a crucial assumption: that computational intelligence is not just a model of a kind of intelligence, an abstraction in other words, but intelligence itself, synonymous with human intelligence. That's a bold assumption, one which people who work and deal in CS and with computers love, for obvious reasons, but there is no agreement on that assumption at all. At base, it is an assumption. So to leap from that to AGI seems in that respect simply hypothesizing and writing science fiction. Presenting logical reasons against that hypothesis is completely reasonable.
> If a robot can do that, too (what you call "convincing as AGI") then we must assume it is also conscious, because if we don't, we'd have a logical inconsistency on our hands. If I am allowed to safely assume you are sentient, then I must also be allowed to safely assume a robot is sentient if it can convince me, because in both cases I have no method of falsifying the claim to sentience.
Let's, for the sake of your argument accept that even though I disagree, is that AGI? AGI on the one hand seems to mean convincing even though the people who made it know otherwise or essentially alive and sentient in a way that is fundamentally computational, that is, utterly alien to us, even the people who made it. There is no reason to think that that computer intelligence should it even be possible to exist, would be even be intelligible to us as sentient in a human or even animal sense.
> What are the common secular arguments against AGI?
There is an entire sector of Philosophy of Mind that is a convincing argument against AGI. Neuroscience is also pretty skeptical of it.
Part of it comes down to what you mean by AGI. Is it a computer that is convincing as AGI? Or is it AGI that is essentially like human consciousness in nature?
The former is probably possible, given enough time, computational resources, and ingenuity. The latter is generally regarded as pretty nonsensical. In general, I think you're implying the gap between the AI we have now, and animals, and humans, is way smaller than it really is. The gap between computer AI and even some intelligent animals is enormous, let alone humans. And many would not even say computers are intelligent in a human sense. Computers don't think, or imagine in any intelligible sense. They compute. That's it. So the question that really should be asked is whether computation alone can lead to something that is recognizably an AGI in the human sense? I would say no, because that requires abilities that computers simply do not and cannot have. But it might achieve something that is convincing as AGI, something like Wolfram or Siri but much more convincing.
Part of it comes down to the fact that the term AI for ML is generally just marketing speak. It's a computational model of a kind of intelligence that is computational in nature, with all the limits that entails. Part of it also comes down to people who love computers thinking computers will ultimately be able to do anything and everything. That feels cool, but it doesn't mean it's possible.
edit:
There is also Erik J Larson's book "The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can’t Think the Way We Do" from 2021 which is an interesting argument against AI -> AGI. He has a pretty good grasp on CS and Philosophy.
Have you ever been bit by the bug of absolutely needing to get something done and finished just so you can keep riding the high of finishing something? You chase that feeling into the next thing, and the next thing, and so on.
They were doing that. Finishing and shipping anything feels really really good. If you're a small team and you feel a deep personal investment in the product then shipping becomes addictive.
Brandon Sanderson and writing is a similar example. Is the quality always there? No. But, the guy is very very good at finishing and clearly rides to wherever his passion takes him. His output is, in comparison to other authors writing in similar genres, incredible.
Also, games were much simpler and players had much simpler expectations.
> Our goal is to have technology companies, research labs, and similar organizations sponsor contests about their respective fields.
Sci-Fi has a strong vein of criticism throughout it's history. A lot of Sci-fi is a critique of modern society, including the potential consequences of a technology, the overreach of business/companies, and failed ethics in research labs.
If there is a sponsor, how separate will the judging of the story be from the topic of story and the sponsors? If the sci-fi story is very critical of something like CRISPR, if a CRISPR related company is the sponsor, how will the sponsorship play into judges decisions? Do judges have complete discretion on what they pick, or is there a final selection that ultimately happens?
"If a lion could speak, we could not understand (verstehen)[0] him."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, from Philosophical Investigations
[0] Ironically, there is disagreement over the best translation of verstehen. Understand and comprehend have some conceptual overlap, but also some distinctions. The general idea is, though, of understanding in a greater, more all encompassing sense that is only possible when someone/something is no longer alien.
I agree. The quality of his writing and output is generally on par with someone like Clive Cussler, or Joyce Carol Oates. The method is pretty simple: write a lot and see what sticks. Updike was probably the best writer in the modern era to have used that method.
Sanderson generally has some interesting concepts but his characters are pretty simplistic, and he puts an extreme emphasis on "systematic worldbuilding," to the detriment of their plot. His style is really starting to show its limits in the Stormlight books, which are very long, which have some neat scenes, but which are also in incredible need of an editor.
This is a well studied phenomenon in literature. Some books we regard as classics today sold relatively little upon release, while authors in the past were incredibly popular then, upon the author's death usually, the name was utterly forgotten from aesthetic appraisals. Ideas of a "canon" are much less stable than people think.
I find, in general, that philosophy tends to have the best overall quality of writing in academic writing. There are still examples of bad writing, but when it's good, the writing is crystal clear and a joy to read.
Yeah, I think most people look at the endless 1v1 party sparring of America's political system and just see a recipe for unending revenge and bitterness.
Most parliamentary systems, or multi-party systems, do not have the same amounts of longstanding political polarization that has come to grip America, where every issue must be divided along party lines or you're a "traitor to the cause".
Pierce can get some good ones off, but I find his writing often lacks the laconic elegance or sheer surrealism of some of PJ or Thompson's writing. Sometimes he veers into old-man-yells-at-cloud territory, and too be fair it feels like most political commentary from a certain generation has succumbed to that amidst and post Trump.
This is a topic where having knowledge of art history helps quite a lot. One could make an entire university course around the ways artists have grappled with perspective over time. Just coming to grips with the fact that linear perspective is something we learn to understand as "natural", as communicating a scene or image in such and such a way, despite it being an artistic technique for representing 3d shapes on a 2d surface from a fixed point(s) of view, can be a big way to get people over the hump and to appreciate non-representational art, or even just the works of 20th and 19th century modernist painters like Picasso or Cezanne.
I think with something like Icelandic, your best bet is to find a teacher, be it online or in person.
Because Icelandic has a small population of speakers, and less of a global reach compared to languages like French, Mandarin, or English, there will be less easily available resources. It will also be very distinct. I don't believe Icelandic is a part of common language families, like a romance language, or a germanic language.
It is well known that having an SO that speaks your learning language is a huge help. Every older french lady has always told me to "get a french gf if I really want to learn." The same is true for programming. Very common to hear of people learning programming later in life with the help of an SO. The quicker and more personalized the feedback you can get when learning anything is always the better.
You might be thinking of Bon Cop Bad Cop which is all about the differences between Franco-Ontarian and Quebecois French, or Standard French versus Quebecois. Where I live I hear a ton of Quebecois but even with knowing B2 level French I find the accent very hard to parse out.
Here's a funny scene from the movie on Quebecois swearing:
The wiki page has a lot of the responses, some of which are more convincing than others. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie#Respons...