News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Not by AI by omnicognate on Thursday March 16, 2023 @09:51AM (#35181974)
There are many rational reasons for a person to see these questions differently to you and plenty of explanations of those reasons around. You may disagree with them, but to claim that differing views must spring from phobias or other irrational mental states rather from a different assessment of the evidence is baseless ad-hominem. I would strongly recommend avoiding statements of that form in general as they achieve nothing good.

I could make a similarly disrepectful and unsupported claim about the mental state of people who believe most human creative activity is simply recycling learned ideas, and we could spend some time flinging insults at each other, but why?

Re:Not by AI by donatj on Thursday March 16, 2023 @10:07AM (#35182164)
Hear me out. In the most basic sense, to believe the mind a box that can output things not based on input is inherently to believe it irrational.

Non-"function"-ally pure in the programmatic sense. Output based somehow other than purely on input.

And the question is where does that irrationality come from? A random number generator? Any good developer knows there's no such thing as an actual random. They're all either list based or based environmental aspects.

I don't think there's an argument to be made that the human mind isn't just mixing ideas that doesn't rely on some form of magical thinking.

Re:Not by AI by omnicognate on Thursday March 16, 2023 @10:18AM (#35182313)
This is a profoundly counterproductive way to approach a debate and I won't engage with it.
Re:Not by AI by donatj on Thursday March 16, 2023 @10:49AM (#35182762)
I don't see how coming at a debate from first principles is somehow counter productive?

Shining light on the unsupported parts of the other person's argument is step one of debate.

I contend there is no proof of a machine capable of creation purely from the ether.

Re:Not by AI by dinkumthinkum on Thursday March 16, 2023 @11:26AM (#35183214)
The first paragraph is just a non sequitar anyway.
Re:Not by AI by donatj on Thursday March 16, 2023 @11:37AM (#35183325)
Care to explain?
Re:Not by AI by yyyk on Thursday March 16, 2023 @03:39PM (#35187220)
>In the most basic sense, to believe the mind a box that can output things not based on input is inherently to believe it "irrational" in the truest sense of the word.

No, it believes that the mind has an internal state. We have many cases of state which is in practice undecidable. Moreover, in many formulation of quantum physics one can have a state which is unreachable even in theory (not just hidden variable style QM theory, there are ways to get unreachable state even in 'regular' QM[0]). I'm not sure this is true regarding the brain, but for now we have not ruled it out.

>And if that's the case, the question is where does that irrationality come from?

The universe itself. The linked PDF - you might be familiar with the author, he features often on HN - provides one method this is possible (though, again, I'm not saying this is true).

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159