Why's that? I'm guessing because bio materials have computing properties that we have a very difficult time mimicking (brains in particular)?

It's very possible that he changed his outlook between coining the term and now

We just need to find a way to skip the intervening 10 years each time so that nothing gets in the way of all these amazing developments.

At least this guy talks about a roadmap...but yes I agree, I want to see that roadmap.

My nitpick is that he shouldn't have put a specific probability number on this because he did not attempt to validate or verify it numerically. He has educated impressions and estimations about how the tech will develop, but as a physicist, I prickle at putting a number on something without quantitatively finding that number.

As for the actual subject matter: I think he's right. I actually think the consciousness problem is overblown. Subjective data (sensations, "what it's like to be a bat"), action planning, and executing actions - repeated frequently or continuously over a period of - is a good enough definition of consciousness for me. As such making a conscious general AI seems doable, and by my low standards, some probably exist already. I'd go so far as to say that the hardest part about making a human-like consciousness is not in creating a form of consciousness, but in generalizing its intelligence to the point where it can be used for multiple things (like humans are).

In other words, I think that making a toy model of consciousness that is either useless or only good for one thing (like chatting via text) is totally doable. I think making a consciousness with enough general intelligence that it looks like a human intelligence is incredibly difficult.

Duh. Now go do it.

>ending all arguments about why anybody does anything at all

Had me until here. I realize this is probably hyperbole, but despite whatever difficulties arise, we absolutely must have debates about why people do big, important things at the very least. The joy of games may explain why some people are selfish in how they think about their actions (i.e. they see their actions as fundamentally good, as you say), and that is an obstacle to arguing about why people do things, but we humans have to be able to make responsible large-scale decisions on nuanced topics. Without debating how exactly to proceed on those large-scale decisions, that is utterly impossible in practice.

Link to the source saying that this actually happened before NATO announced it on Nov 14?

That is part of our training set for decision making. It comes from instinct and influences our decisions based on the past development of our heredity.

>in the absence of all training data

Absolutely no intelligence ever (human, animal, etc) has zero training data, exepct perhaps before their brains become conscious for the first time. Brains learn from all sources and apply their knowledge bit-by-bit to solve problems. Intelligence is not magic, and it can never ever make something from nothing.

You missed my point completely, so why did you decide to reply? It's like you're cleverbot

I was not asking for information for my own good. I was quizzing you because I doubt your knowledge and wanted to judge whether I should keep talking to you. So your wikipedia link does not help.

But you started doing weird stream-of-consciousness comments that only vaguely relate to what I've been saying, and it's impossible to have a convo with someone who does that.

You're ridiculous. I KNOW. That was my point - that we don't do unregulated capitalism anymore because it's bad.

Why talk to people if you just type stream-of-consciousness without listening to what people say?

By the way, since you're gung-ho, go ahead and list and correctly define some non-capitalism economic systems. I constantly see many people (conservatives) talk about various economic systems without understanding what they are, so you can certainly understand my question.

Yes, we all see this happening. The question is how to not do that as humans. We have made HUGE strides in the past century. Probably won't be enough, who knows. Certainly not you or me.

You're trying to start a hardly-relevant argument. Capitalist evangelism is silly. I said unregulated capitalism is bad. You have no decent argument against that because you know working children to death is bad.

By the way, our capitalist system is a regulated one.

I don't respect you trying to start an argument with snappy one-liners.

Hard disagree, not much content in your statement

That's only because that's how our financial system has been built in the past. We're trying to buck all sorts of bad economic habits from the past, like unregulated capitalism for instance. If we make some changes such that more people have access to good housing, people don't privately hold land property, and people have secure means to pass on wealth, that would be ideal imo.

Yeah, even at the highest levels. The catholic church's moral righteousness is a veneer in front of millenia of persecution and imperialism done by many theocracies in the name of that religion.