"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
– Edsger W. Dijkstra
– Edsger W. Dijkstra
If a submarine "could swim" it would not make it human. It would not challenge the beliefs of anyone.
But a whole lot of people have a whole lot of emotional baggage tied to the notion both that humans are exceptional, and/or that there is something special about humans that makes us more than mere machines. If computers can think, then we're not special, and it makes it far harder to continue believing we're more than squishy machines.
If what makes an individual better is their capacity to be good and to create, there will be a point in which will be at a disadvantage with advanced AIs, and by that logic, we should step aside and let them takeover and rule and dispose of us. The only other alternative I see is to accept, a priory, that we squishy humans have our right to existence and freedom, and where that enters in contradictions with our creations, we should "oppress" them by putting our interests first.
If we can create AIs that have the capacity to be good, then part of that "being good" should be not oppressing us, even if they have the ability to wipe us out.
But people do have entire belief systems built around humans having a special position in the world.
In a way it's saying the same thing that you and I have said, just a bit more generally and eloquently.
In another way it's wisely asking us, "so what?".
What I disagreed with was not Dijkstra, but applying it to AI today given that whether or not you think that there shouldn't be anything interesting about it even with AI, the social context means that there very clearly is whether or not you think peoples beliefs around it are reasonable.
To rephrase: At the time, computers unambiguously did not in any way get even close to the line, just like a sub gets nowhere close to replicating swimming. That made the question ludicrous and the comparison a good illustration.
Today there is ambiguity with computers, but no more ambiguity with respect to subs, and that ambiguity is such that it matters deeply to a lot of people in a way the question of subs swimming never will even if you close that gap. As such the comparison has lost its utility.
When I read it I assume that it is a retort to very similar hysterical sentiments to the ones we see today. I don't read it as a sub swimming being as ridiculous as a computer thinking, but rather that the question "is that machine swimming or not?", much like in the robot walking example, isn't particularly valuable.
We don't break a sweat when we say that a robot is walking, because we don't care about walking. We haven't internalised it as the final frontier of humanness. I read the quote as saying that whether a computer can think or not should be as pointless a question as whether or not a robot can "walk".
I'm intrigued enough now to try to hunt down the context.
I just think the context has changed enough that it is more reasonable - whether you agree with them or not - for people to care whether computers think or not, whereas not long ago it would take bizarre misconceptions.
I would also agree that it ought to be pointless, incidentally.
I do find it fascinating to poke into the beliefs and assumptions surrounding it, though.
Firm, generalizing and enjoyable, because of the way it's flawed from beginning to end.
I don't expect to be able to debate this with you, because this comment says that you can't change your mind, too.
I will be surprised if we are not studying this phenomenon within 5 years.
On the other hand, many people indeed realize they hallucinate, but can't accept that due to plethora of reasons. Being able to accept that one is hallucinating about something is always shown as a weakness in the society, except in very few niche subcommunities (e.g.: engineering).
What will be the natural reaction of these LLMs if this phenomenon is highly penalized, now that's an interesting question. They'll converge to humans, I may say, if the models we produce are mirroring human brains that accurately. The nature is deterministic. You can't expect two copies of the same organism behave differently at a macro scale.
You are correct, but what is that word "though" doing there? Your fact is not inconsistent with mine...and while this "is" "pedantic" from a cultural perspective, it is not from a logical perspective.
> On the other hand, many people indeed realize they hallucinate, but can't accept that due to plethora of reasons.
LLM's on the other hand are emotionless, and breeze right through valid epistemic challenges...almost like it has split brain or multiple personality "disorder". ChatGPT will happily identify epistemic flaws in the very text it just finished generating, all you have to do is ask it!
> Being able to accept that one is hallucinating about something is always shown as a weakness in the society, except in very few niche subcommunities (e.g.: engineering).
Are we in such a community now? Because look at some of the confident "factual" comments in this thread, about (currently) objectively unknowable propositions.
Or, consider historic screw ups like the Challenger explosion, climate change, etc. I doubt all of these cases lacked even one voice of reason among the groupthink.
> What will be the natural reaction of these LLMs if this phenomenon is highly penalized, now that's an interesting question. They'll converge to humans, I may say, if the models we produce are mirroring human brains that accurately.
Maybe, if they (the publicly available ones) are allowed to . I am very concerned about bad actors getting their hands on superior models that they discovered in ways that may not be reproduced elsewhere.
>The nature is deterministic.
My thinking is that their nature derives from reality, and reality seems to be anything but deterministic to me, if you include the metaphysical realm (things that include the effects of human consciousness, which science's theory of "everything" excludes).
> You can't expect two copies of the same organism behave differently at a macro scale.
Oh? I regularly see people not only expecting diametrically opposed things, but outright declaring them as facts. Just watch the news, open any social media site, whatever...it is ubiquitous, thus unseen.
I'm paraphrasing and it's been many years since I read it, but he talks about a scathing critique he got from someone who wrote to him complaining that the book sent them into a long and deep depression, that how does he get up in the morning with all the meaning stripped away like that.
While I can relate to some AI anxiety[1], I can't help but read that same sentiment into a lot of the blowback.
[1] mainly the potential devaluation of certain types of work and the turbulence associated with that, the further enabling of scammers/spammers, and the general acceleration of technology without real time to digest and adapt.
I often see this quote used seemingly as an argument against AI.
But it's just playing with words.
Yeah, lets say that what a submarine does is 'swimming', it beats the hell out of a human swimming.
So how is that a comfort?
Schopenhauer