We are constantly fed a version of AI that looks, sounds and acts suspiciously like us. It speaks in polished sentences, mimics emotions, expresses curiosity, claims to feel compassion, even dabbles in what it calls creativity.

But what we call AI today is nothing more than a statistical machine: a digital parrot regurgitating patterns mined from oceans of human data (the situation hasn’t changed much since it was discussed here five years ago). When it writes an answer to a question, it literally just guesses which letter and word will come next in a sequence – based on the data it’s been trained on.

This means AI has no understanding. No consciousness. No knowledge in any real, human sense. Just pure probability-driven, engineered brilliance — nothing more, and nothing less.

So why is a real “thinking” AI likely impossible? Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure. It doesn’t hunger, desire or fear. And because there is no cognition — not a shred — there’s a fundamental gap between the data it consumes (data born out of human feelings and experience) and what it can do with them.

Philosopher David Chalmers calls the mysterious mechanism underlying the relationship between our physical body and consciousness the “hard problem of consciousness”. Eminent scientists have recently hypothesised that consciousness actually emerges from the integration of internal, mental states with sensory representations (such as changes in heart rate, sweating and much more).

Given the paramount importance of the human senses and emotion for consciousness to “happen”, there is a profound and probably irreconcilable disconnect between general AI, the machine, and consciousness, a human phenomenon.

https://archive.ph/Fapar

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    So why is a real “thinking” AI likely impossible? Because it’s bodiless. It has no senses, no flesh, no nerves, no pain, no pleasure.

    This is not a good argument.

    • Simulation6@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The book The Emperors new Mind is old (1989), but it gave a good argument why machine base AI was not possible. Our minds work on a fundamentally different principle then Turing machines.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s hard to see that books argument from the Wikipedia entry, but I don’t see it arguing that intelligence needs to have senses, flesh, nerves, pain and pleasure.

        It’s just saying computer algorithms are not what humans use for consciousness. Which seems a reasonable conclusion. It doesn’t imply computers can’t gain consciousness, or that they need flesh and senses to do so.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Our minds work on a fundamentally different principle then Turing machines.

        Is that an advantage, or a disadvantage? I’m sure the answer depends on the setting.

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Actually it’s a very very brief summary of some philosophical arguments that happened between the 1950s and the 1980s. If you’re interested in the topic, you could go read about them.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m not attacking philosophical arguments between the 1950s and the 1980s.

        I’m pointing out that the claim that consciousness must form inside a fleshy body is not supported by any evidence.

    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      philosopher

      Here’s why. It’s a quote from a pure academic attempting to describe something practical.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The philosopher has made an unproven assumption. An erroneously logical leap. Something an academic shouldn’t do.

        Just because everything we currently consider conscious has a physical presence, does not imply that consciousness requires a physical body.