| 中文简介: |
计算领域中最敏锐的两个头脑在赌博, 但在最古老的争论之一中, 两人都没有击倒: 机器是否有一天会实现意识。(n b: 观众不妨温习一下电脑先驱阿兰·图灵和哲学家约翰·塞尔的作品, 为这段视频做准备.) ray kurzweil 自信地表示, 在不久的将来, 人工智能将 "掌握人类智慧". 他引用了 "技术增长的指数级力量", 这将使两者都有一分钟的详细了解人脑, 以及建造至少可以模拟原始思维的机器的能力。kurzweil 说, 这样的机器必须跨越的 "前沿" 是情商 — "搞笑, 表达爱的感情 …" 当这种情况发生时, 还不完全清楚这个实体是否会实现 "意识, 因为我们没有 "意识探测器" 来确定它是否能够主观体验。 大卫·格勒特承认自己的地位会不受欢迎, 于是发起了攻击: "除非我们正确地对待这个问题, 否则我们甚至无法制造出超级聪明的僵尸"样式存在于人之中。至于制造一台有意识的机器, 他认为即使是最复杂的软件也不可能出现这种机器。"意识是指精神状态的存在严格地私有, 没有明显的作用或后果。一个有意识的实体可以召唤一个思想或记忆仅仅是为了感到快乐, 被启发, 得到安慰, 感到愤怒 … "软件程序, 顾名思义, 可以被分离, 剥离, 并在任何计算平台上以逻辑上相同的方式运行。这样的程序怎么可能自发地产生 "一个新的意识节点？" kurzweil 承认了定义意识的困难, 但不想希望放弃这一概念, 因为它是我们道德和伦理体系的基础。他坚持他的观点, 即人脑的逆向工程将使机器能够以一定程度的复杂性行事, 不知何故意识将从这些机器中产生。 gelernter 回答说, 相信这一点 "似乎是完全任意的说法。任何事情都可能是真的, 但我不明白是什么让这种说法成为可能. "他说, 最终, kurzweil 必须客观和科学地解释什么是意识--" 它是如何创造和实现的. "kurzweil 认为," 它是如何创造和实现的. "声称我们未来的能力, 以数字方式模拟数十亿神经元和神经递质的行动, 这在人类不知何故产生的意识。gelernter 认为, 这样的机器可能会模拟精神状态, 但实际上并没有作为一个有意识的实体通过集合。最终, 他质疑制造这样的电脑的可取性: "有一天, 当我们更喜欢从沃尔玛的机器人公司到我们的隔壁邻居或室友时, 我们可能会到达这个州。
|
| 课程简介: |
Two of the sharpest minds in the computing arena spar gamely, but neither scores a knockdown in one of the oldest debates around: whether machines may someday achieve consciousness. (NB: Viewers may wish to brush up on the work of computer pioneer Alan Turing and philosopher John Searle in preparation for this video.) Ray Kurzweil confidently states that artificial intelligence will, in the not distant future, “master human intelligence.” He cites the “exponential power of growth in technology” that will enable both a minute, detailed understanding of the human brain, and the capacity for building a machine that can at least simulate original thought. The “frontier” such a machine must cross is emotional intelligence—“being funny, expressing loving sentiment…” And when this occurs, says Kurzweil, it’s not entirely clear that the entity will have achieved consciousness, since we have no “consciousness detector” to determine if it is capable of subjective experiences. Acknowledging that his position will prove unpopular, David Gelernter launches his attack: “We won’t even be able to build super-intelligent zombies unless we approach the problem right.” This means admitting that a continuum of cognitive styles exists among humans. As for building a conscious machine, he sees no possibility of one emerging from even the most sophisticated software. “Consciousness means the presence of mental states strictly private with no visible functions or consequences. A conscious entity can call on a thought or memory merely to feel happy, be inspired, soothed, feel anger…” Software programs, by definition, can be separated out, peeled away and run in a logically identical way on any computing platform. How could such a program spontaneously give rise to “a new node of consciousness?” Kurzweil concedes the difficulty of defining consciousness, but does not want to wish away the concept, since it serves as the basis for our moral and ethical systems. He maintains his argument that reverse engineering of the human brain will enable machines that can act with a level of complexity, from which somehow consciousness will emerge. Gelernter replies that believing this “seems a completely arbitrary claim. Anything might be true, but I don’t see what makes the claim plausible.” Ultimately, he says, Kurzweil must explain objectively and scientifically what consciousness is -- “how it’s created and got there.” Kurzweil stakes his claim on our future capacity to model digitally the actions of billions of neurons and neurotransmitters, which in humans somehow give rise to consciousness. Gelernter believes such a machine might simulate mental states, but not actually pass muster as a conscious entity. Ultimately, he questions the desirability of building such computers: “We might reach the state some day when we prefer the company of a robot from Walmart to our next-door neighbor or roommates.”
|
图 书 馆
