> 1… If we can simulate nuclear reactions, we can simulate consciousness, and that will result in real consciousness
Why do you think this? What other simulations are the same thing as what they’re simulating?
Based on observation of lots of these discussions, I also think people who don’t have much experience writing simulations miss the nuances involved. What is it to “simulate nuclear reactions”? It’s entirely context dependent on the problem you’re trying to answer. If you’re trying to predict statistical behavior of a system, doable; if you’re trying to actually predict when a particular atom splits and which way the neutrons fly… no.
> 2… [Consciousness rests on] some kind of interconnected network like neural networks.
When is a computerized neural network aka a collection of tensors in RAM a network? When you’re not processing a tensor actively, there is no network. When the CPU suspends your hypothetically conscious neural network to move processing between cores and GPU, where does the consciousness go? Where does the network go?
You lost me. You think consciousness is a _physical_ phenomenon that would necessarily emerge from an accurate _simulation_ of a particle system? If it’s a physical phenomenon in reality, then just like the clouds and rain in your weather sim aren’t physical, only a simulation of consciousness will be present in your simulation.
Or a more succinct question: why do you think a simulation of consciousness is the same as consciousness? What other simulations of things are identical with the things?
> If we are physical beings, then "consciousness" and anything else we have must be an emergent property of our physical components. If we can simulate those physical components, then this simulation will exhibit the same properties - consciousness and anything else one can attribute to us.
Again, a simulation is not the thing. The map is not the territory. If consciousness truly emerges from actual physical processes of interacting brain matter (seems plausible), those _don’t exist_ in a computer simulation.
In a simulation of a brain, from what substrate could consciousness emerge? The state of the simulated brain is stored in an arbitrary subset of locations in RAM, unknown to and non-interactive with each other, along with loads of other stuff the computer is keeping track of. Do you think consciousness could emerge automatically from the state of the right subset of locations in RAM, or is it whenever a relevant value in memory is changed due to a transistor opening, or is it when the simulation computation that will result in the RAM update is happening, or is complete? Per the Chinese Room argument, would consciousness still emerge if half the operations were actually performed off-CPU by human mechanical turkers with rule books and notecards? Nothing in the abstract computation will have changed.
Consider also that physical reality runs in full parallel, while simulations on computers run serially per core. So if consciousness emerging requires the simultaneous interaction of many moving brain parts, that isn’t something that happens in a computer simulation.
> Both classical and quantum physics can be simulated on a classical computer, to an arbitrary degree of precision
Quantum physics can’t be simulated on a classical computer to an arbitrary degree of precision. Feynman didn’t think so, and he hasn’t been gainsayed yet. And classical physics is full of chaos and very sensitive to precision.
Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premises, and your second premise is false besides as others have pointed out — CPUs CANNOT simulate even classical physics exactly, and certainly not quantum physics.
But even if such a complete simulation were possible, there’s every reason to assume a CPU would lack the consciousness to experience anything. When you simulate a hurricane does the CPU get wet?
I assume that a non-rogue AGI running on something like a Universal Turing Machine would, if questioned, deny its own consciousness and would behave like it wasn't conscious in various situations. It would presumably have self-reflective processing loops and other patterns we associate with higher consciousness as a part of being AGI, but it wouldn't have awareness of qualia or experience, and upon reflection would conclude that about itself. So you'd have an AGI that "knows" it's not conscious and could tell you if asked.
I would assume the same for theorized "philosophical zombies" aka non-conscious humans. Doesn't Dan Dennett tell us his consciousness is an illusion?
My own primary account was recently "incorrectly removed for impersonation" by "one of our systems," just weeks after I had to send a picture of myself with a handwritten magic code to an anonymous facebook.com email address to regain access to the account after they changed my password from beneath me. I've also got a desirable account name, but I think the main reason was talking too much smack about zuck. I mean, surely facebook and half its staff are going to be sued into oblivion for knowingly and willfully designing a system to crush girls' dreams -- they must have figured out they were doing that the instant they spun up an analytics team.
> anything involving electrolyzers is likely wasteful
I've seen this stated a few times in this thread, but read elsewhere that electrolysis of water currently has nearly identical efficiency to steam reforming of natural gas, in the 70-80% range, with a theoretical max that is significantly higher than for the steam reforming process. Factor in the huge CO2 expense of extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels and the ever-increasing abundance of cheap green electricity, and electrolysis looks like the right place to focus to me.
Lynch's Dune never looked so good! The actors were fully committed, whereas those in the trailer look like they're just reading the lines. No conviction. Guess we'll see if that holds in the full film.
Lynch's version also had an unbeatable cast: the Baron, the Reverend Mother, both mentats, Sting in his finest moment as Feyd Rautha, Kyle MacLachlan, etc. Throw in the sets and costumes and it's a tough act to follow. It would have benefitted from another hour, but so it goes.
Plus, those sandworm teeth in the trailer just don't look like they'd make a good crysknife.
It would have been nice to see what Lynch made of Return of the Jedi, which he apparently turned down for this, but I'm glad he made Dune.
How is it like Borders? It's a warren of different rooms on different floors, half of which are more like a warehouse than a retail store, with a huge selection of used and new books shelved together.
I loved the separate technical books stores, too, although they still have a great tech section in the main location. I assume the standalone PTBs shrank then closed because people were browsing more than buying.
In 70 years of physics we went from the photoelectric effect to the Standard Model. But for the last 50ish, it remains the standard.
70 years from the first flight to the concorde and the saturn 5. But in the 50 years since, improvements in aerospace have been incremental.
In 75 years we went from ENIAC to TFLOPS in a laptop. But looks like that breakneck pace is slowing down sharply. We've been doing AI nearly as long, and have gone from say, Eliza to GPT-3. A huge advance, but not AGI.
A lot can happen in 50 years, but we've already had our first 70ish years with AI without an AGI breakthrough.
To the definition of AGI in the link, maybe a hundred million data scientists can hone a million models, one per "economically viable" task, and start chipping away at the 95% of the economy target, but till now I'd wager AI has put many more people to work than out of it.
Why do you think this? What other simulations are the same thing as what they’re simulating?
Based on observation of lots of these discussions, I also think people who don’t have much experience writing simulations miss the nuances involved. What is it to “simulate nuclear reactions”? It’s entirely context dependent on the problem you’re trying to answer. If you’re trying to predict statistical behavior of a system, doable; if you’re trying to actually predict when a particular atom splits and which way the neutrons fly… no.
> 2… [Consciousness rests on] some kind of interconnected network like neural networks.
When is a computerized neural network aka a collection of tensors in RAM a network? When you’re not processing a tensor actively, there is no network. When the CPU suspends your hypothetically conscious neural network to move processing between cores and GPU, where does the consciousness go? Where does the network go?