Musk is not an engineer, but he can bestow on himself any title he wants — he practically owns the world! He personally had nothing to do with developing rocketry or DALL-E. He’s a con artist with a lot of money.
As CTO/Chief Engineer of SpaceX surely he would at least understand it - as well as understanding DALL-E - I completely disagree with "I don‘t think he is any more qualified to speculate about future technology than you or I". You keep on brushing over what I see as an amazing AI - DALL-E.... Would you agree that you don't understand how it works?
As to brains in vats, please show me how to make a brain in a vat. No one has a clue.
Despite being our most complex organ, the brain doesn't ask for much to survive, but keeping a brain alive in isolation is difficult to monitor.
www.sciencefocus.com
"....Guinea pig, dog and monkey brains have all been kept alive for hours or even days after being removed...."
I never said that anyone is claiming current AI is conscious. What I said is that no one has any idea how to make AI conscious. None. The fact that current AI is not conscious is a clue that if we want to simulate conscious entities, computers may not be the way to do it because brains are not computers.
So natural processes can cause consciousness to evolve and you don't think we'd ever be able to understand and replicate this?
They could use philosophical zombies to avoid suffering? But that’s not what the simulation argument is! The simulation argument is that we are conscious, and that we are simulations.
No there are many examples involving a consciousness outside of the simulation -
e.g. the
Roy game and the dream thought experiment,
These imply the other characters are just "non-player characters" rather than involving billions of fully conscious beings...
and I stand by my statement that if we are simulated the simulators are sadistic monsters. Would an ethical society countenance creation of ancestor simulations in which the simulated entities are conscious and suffering?
I think Bostrom is saying that it involves a single brain then its inputs are simulated.... also most Christians would say that God is infinitely loving even if most people are going to suffer very severely in hell forever.... I'm talking about people on earth for a few decades (if the simulation wanted to involve genuine suffering).
You think that we are indeed simulations and that the the simulation is only a few decades ago? Evidence?
This is the case in the Roy game and Alan Watts dream thought experiment (check out the two videos)
I'm saying that they'd want to cut costs so they'd just simulate the recent past instead of 13 billion years. And if you started from billions of years ago remember the butterfly effect - any tiny changes would result in huge changes in history. Are you familiar with the butterfly effect?
Generate plausible fossils? Honestly, this is as nutty as young-earth creationism/Last Thursdayism. I’m not calling you a nut, only this arguments is … well, nuts. There is no evidence to support any of it and runs afoul sixteen thousand ways of Sunday of Occam’s Razor.
It would be easy for a future AI to generate plausible fossils.
I said that there are either simulations all the way down or that there is a base reality. This is obviously true. It has to be one or the other.
So say we are in base reality and then we create a single simulation that is indistinguishable from reality. The people inside that simulation involve
one simulation - neither zero or infinity.
Whether it does or not, the persistent point is that we are no closer to simulating consciousness in a machine, or making a brain in a vat, now, than we were in 1350, when I believe they were trying to make golems.
"....Guinea pig, dog and monkey brains have all been kept alive for hours or even days after being removed...."
So that technology for putting brains in vats is equal to the technology in 1350? I'm not sure that at that stage they even knew the brain was used for thinking....
www.boredpanda.com
