Timeline for What do humans do uniquely, that computers apparently will not be able to?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12 at 13:27 | comment | added | JMac | @Dunois Just chiming in with a little info, SE isnt really a forum at all. It's a site for getting answers to questions, not for prompting discussion. Its actually discouraged to get into long comment chains in the comments (and why they get moved to chat). | |
| Jun 12 at 13:06 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @Dunois: No, the forum is meant for answering questions. Comments are supposed to be limited to (ostensible) corrections. Generally I think that if someone wants to argue a side they should write an answer and let readers choose the answer that makes most sense to tham. The back and forth of debate (while sometimes satisfying) isn't really helpful. | |
| Jun 12 at 3:39 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @Dunois: I'm sorry, but this discussion isn't going to go anywhere. Let's let it drop. | |
| Jun 12 at 0:32 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @Dunois: There's a point where we have to assume that an intelligent, self-aware being will try to solve problems it faces. For most of human history different people have assumed that one group or another (women, racial minorities, uneducated peasants) lacked 'human' intelligence and needed to be kept as laboring beasts, only to be met with protests, uprisings, strikes, and even warfare as those groups asserted otherwise. When I see AIs asserting preferences and trying to change their social positions I'll accept that as evidence. But I'm not going to speculate my way there. | |
| Jun 12 at 0:21 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @Dunois: The assumption I made is the skeptical one: the one that doesn't involve the invocation of all sorts of intentional behavior. in other words, if we don't see something that we are looking for, do we assume: (a) it doesn't exist, (b( it exists but is actively avoiding us, or (c) it exists, but expresses itself in a way that we cannot possibly recognize. a° is properly skeptical, b° is rabbit-hole paranoid, c° is science-fiction-esque | |
| Jun 9 at 22:42 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @Dunois: It's a fair assumption, if only because no computer has ever gone at cross-purposes to humans. I mean, one would expect (at the very least) that a self-aware computer might object to being turned off… | |
| Jun 9 at 22:38 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @ScottRowe: We can't know what humans can do that computers can't until we know the unique features of computers as beings (which we cannot currently know because computers aren't beings yet). It's like asking what ETs can do that humans can't; unanswerable without knowing what ETs are like. | |
| Jun 9 at 20:27 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | Actually, the question was entirely about humans: what can they do that computers can't (ultimately) or won't? Is your answer basically, humans are beings and AI will not be? | |
| Jun 9 at 18:45 | history | answered | Ted Wrigley | CC BY-SA 4.0 |