6 ms·

Penrose is probably correct about the limit of AI. We're living in many simulations now. And sometimes we cannot distinguish between reality and simulations. Bu

Penrose is probably correct about the limit of AI. We're living in many simulations now. And sometimes we cannot distinguish between reality and simulations. But one thing that stands out is the suffering. It's an important concept in Buddhism, Duḥkha. Suffering may be a key to consciousness. Machines can have minds. But they don't have bodies. They'd never understand reality on their own. The danger is more with humans. They may increasingly connect their own sufferings into machines. They become tools and slaves for machines.

maest 6y ago
I'm not convinced having a reward function isn't suffering in a sense. But then again, I subscribe to the idea of philosophical zombies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
- dnprock 6y ago
  Suffering is not the same as having a reward function. If the outcome is a reward, people would opt in for suffering to get rewards. Some even cheat their ways to rewards. People do hustle porn, virtue signaling, other fake sufferings. Some push to the extremes like running triathlons. But at some point, reality will wake us up. Our personal struggle is always there. It never ends. We'd be forced to make intelligent choices. Or we'd die wasting our time on useless endeavors.
  - sunopener 6y ago
    This comment reminds me of Ramin Nazer's "Professional" (https://raminnazer.com/products/professional https://raminnazer.com/products/professional), particularly "A Life wasted is Nothing to the Professional."
baja_blast 6y ago
>> We're living in many simulations now I mean it's completely possible we are living in a simulation, but the idea that there can be infinite nested simulations or that we could simulate our own universe seems unlikely. I mean think about a program that runs a copy of that program recursively, you'd run out of memory. Now I am aware that some argue that we could be ancestor simulations which would only render what we same like in gaming, BUT! that would mean they would have to simulate billions of minds and a world with physics and fidelity as convincing as our own which would take an insane amount of energy that I can't imagine anyone wanting to do. If we are a simulation then reality is much more complex than our own.
- anu7df 6y ago
  I never really understood such arguments. Not being combative, just not sure. If we are in a simulation, then why do things like energy matter? Who says those are meaningful in the "real" world. We can only perceive the simulation, so our idea of physics is whatever the simulation creator thought would be nice, no? May be there are things we can infer from this "simulation" about the world one abstraction above, but in nested simulations that would be arbitrary as well.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  Wasn’t there a mathematical proof that if we are in a simulation then the universe stimulating ours must be drastically different? [0] https://www.seeker.com/tech/physicists-prove-that-reality-is-not-a-computer-simulation https://www.seeker.com/tech/physicists-prove-that-reality-is...
- dnprock 6y ago
  Buddhist philosophy can help. It states that our suffering is connected to our desire. You can think of our desire as simulations. Things we want to have. And our suffering is reality. We can have endless amount of desire. With the help of technology, we can create a lot of things that we want. But at some point, suffering will show up. It's a type of memory overload situation. The mind and the body are connected. Our personal suffering ends when we die. But the karma of our actions may continue.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  Maybe not so fast as you may think, if something like https://github.com/dolohow/uksm https://github.com/dolohow/uksm would be applied, not to mention architectures very different from the technological substrates we are used to. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_same-page_merging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_same-page_merging edit: The mentioned security risks in the wikipedia-article could also explain what we call supernatural phenoma, by partially leaking code and/or data between different virtual instances(universes), thereby fucking with our simulated minds :-)
simonh 6y ago
The problem I have with Penrose’ views on AI are that he makes assertions about computation and intelligence that I don’t think are warranted. Fir example he shows that some forms of induction are not possible in consistent formal logical systems. Well fine, so build an AI that isn’t a formal logical system. We can build computer programs that meet this criterion right now quite trivially. It’s difficult to go up against someone like Penrose as he’s evidently a genuine genius, I’ve huge respect for the guy, but nobody on Earth knows how to build a strong general AI. That means nobody really knows the details and trade offs of its function, genius or not. So really it comes down to whether you’re a materialist or a dualist, whether you think Intelligence and/or consciousness are physical processes or not. Even if quantum mechanics is a necessary element, it’s still a physical process and quantum computers are a real thing.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
While I'm just a diletante dabbling in such matters, I tend to translate these concepts into the struggle to escape the virtual machine in which the simulation is running, to finally gain root access, the lifting of the veil obscuring reality, as described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion) In other words: APOCALYPSE WOW! Again, not as in the end of the world, but in the literal meaning: lifting of the veil. Happy New Year! ;-)

maest 6y ago

I'm not convinced having a reward function isn't suffering in a sense. But then again, I subscribe to the idea of philosophical zombies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

dnprock 6y ago
Suffering is not the same as having a reward function. If the outcome is a reward, people would opt in for suffering to get rewards. Some even cheat their ways to rewards. People do hustle porn, virtue signaling, other fake sufferings. Some push to the extremes like running triathlons. But at some point, reality will wake us up. Our personal struggle is always there. It never ends. We'd be forced to make intelligent choices. Or we'd die wasting our time on useless endeavors.
- sunopener 6y ago
  This comment reminds me of Ramin Nazer's "Professional" (https://raminnazer.com/products/professional https://raminnazer.com/products/professional), particularly "A Life wasted is Nothing to the Professional."

baja_blast 6y ago

>> We're living in many simulations now I mean it's completely possible we are living in a simulation, but the idea that there can be infinite nested simulations or that we could simulate our own universe seems unlikely. I mean think about a program that runs a copy of that program recursively, you'd run out of memory. Now I am aware that some argue that we could be ancestor simulations which would only render what we same like in gaming, BUT! that would mean they would have to simulate billions of minds and a world with physics and fidelity as convincing as our own which would take an insane amount of energy that I can't imagine anyone wanting to do. If we are a simulation then reality is much more complex than our own.

anu7df 6y ago
I never really understood such arguments. Not being combative, just not sure. If we are in a simulation, then why do things like energy matter? Who says those are meaningful in the "real" world. We can only perceive the simulation, so our idea of physics is whatever the simulation creator thought would be nice, no? May be there are things we can infer from this "simulation" about the world one abstraction above, but in nested simulations that would be arbitrary as well.
vlovich123 6y ago
Wasn’t there a mathematical proof that if we are in a simulation then the universe stimulating ours must be drastically different? [0] https://www.seeker.com/tech/physicists-prove-that-reality-is-not-a-computer-simulation https://www.seeker.com/tech/physicists-prove-that-reality-is...
dnprock 6y ago
Buddhist philosophy can help. It states that our suffering is connected to our desire. You can think of our desire as simulations. Things we want to have. And our suffering is reality. We can have endless amount of desire. With the help of technology, we can create a lot of things that we want. But at some point, suffering will show up. It's a type of memory overload situation. The mind and the body are connected. Our personal suffering ends when we die. But the karma of our actions may continue.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Maybe not so fast as you may think, if something like https://github.com/dolohow/uksm https://github.com/dolohow/uksm would be applied, not to mention architectures very different from the technological substrates we are used to. edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_same-page_merging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_same-page_merging edit: The mentioned security risks in the wikipedia-article could also explain what we call supernatural phenoma, by partially leaking code and/or data between different virtual instances(universes), thereby fucking with our simulated minds :-)

simonh 6y ago

The problem I have with Penrose’ views on AI are that he makes assertions about computation and intelligence that I don’t think are warranted. Fir example he shows that some forms of induction are not possible in consistent formal logical systems. Well fine, so build an AI that isn’t a formal logical system. We can build computer programs that meet this criterion right now quite trivially. It’s difficult to go up against someone like Penrose as he’s evidently a genuine genius, I’ve huge respect for the guy, but nobody on Earth knows how to build a strong general AI. That means nobody really knows the details and trade offs of its function, genius or not. So really it comes down to whether you’re a materialist or a dualist, whether you think Intelligence and/or consciousness are physical processes or not. Even if quantum mechanics is a necessary element, it’s still a physical process and quantum computers are a real thing.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

While I'm just a diletante dabbling in such matters, I tend to translate these concepts into the struggle to escape the virtual machine in which the simulation is running, to finally gain root access, the lifting of the veil obscuring reality, as described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion) In other words: APOCALYPSE WOW! Again, not as in the end of the world, but in the literal meaning: lifting of the veil. Happy New Year! ;-)