News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to... by antonvs on Sunday June 12, 2022 @04:33AM (#31712813)
> But I think it's theoretically possible.

That's an unsubstantiated belief, though.

If we simulate a rock right down to the quantum level - not even remotely possible with foreseeable technology, but let's assume it is - you don't end up with an actual rock in the physical universe. You end up with a model of a rock. There are important properties that it's missing due to not having a direct physical embodiment beyond its model. You can't bash someone in the head with it in the physical world, for example.

In the consciousness case, you're assuming you can "get around this" by using communication between the model and the host universe - communication could allow a model a way to have an effect beyond its host environment, unlike the simulated rock.

But this involves a lot of assumptions about the nature of consciousness, its physical basis, how a model of consciousness would behave, etc. Given the number of unknowns here, the claim that "it's theoretically possible" is supported just as well as the claim that it's theoretically impossible - which is to say, not at all.

Re:A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to... by seba_dos1 on Sunday June 12, 2022 @06:52AM (#31713530)
> You can't bash someone in the head with it in the physical world, for example.

You can bash someone in the head with it in the simulated world though, and if you simulate that person's head well enough it will be just as painful for them as it would be for a real world person.

Re:A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to... by ineedasername on Sunday June 12, 2022 @10:33AM (#31714792)
That's tautological. We are using the thought experiment of a simulated rock to reason our way into simulated consciousness. Therefore you cannot presuppose a simulated rock to induce pain-- a property of consciousness-- before you have properly established the simulated rock. Otherwise you are saying "I know we can simulate consciousness (via simated pain) because we can simaulate the rock. And I know we can simulate the rock because it causes simulated pain (which requires consciousness)." Tautology.
Re:A Google engineer who thinks the company’s AI has come to... by seba_dos1 on Sunday June 12, 2022 @02:02PM (#31716692)
That's not how I read this thread at all. What GP is saying seems to be that when you assume you're able to simulate matter and physical processes down to nuclear level (so you can "simulate a rock" with it), it would be only a matter of giving that simulation enough resources in order for it to be able to simulate a conscious being.

How do you know you're not simulated yourself? Whether we live in a simulation or not does not really have any influence on us and our consciousnesses.