Fat Tony 16 June 2022

Good summary. Consciousness and sentience are not computable. I don't know whether the explanation for them resides in quantum physics or elsewhere, but it seems clear that it is the non-computable nature of sentience that distinguishes true general intelligence and understanding from mere mechanical computation. Weak AI (the only form of computable AI) in contrast will always just carry out the tasks that we sentient creatures have set for it, and no matter how sophisticated those tasks are, they will never be sentient. There is also something wrong I find with the assumption that strong artificial intelligence will be demonstrated by the ability to pass some sort of test. Does that mean an actual human that failed the test, we should consider their sentience suspect? A baby can't carry on any sort of conversation. But I'm sure it is sentient. It isn't even truly aware of itself or its environment. But I know for a fact that inside that baby is a person experiencing what it feels like to be that baby in that moment, even if that memory is ultimately forgotten over time, in that moment there is someone on the inside. But surely it is not outside the realm of technology to be able to simulate what a baby does since babies display few talents or insights. Similarly I would look at an ant and be quicker to assume the ant has a "someone" on the inside feeling what it is like to be an ant in that moment, even if only on a very primitive and basic level, than assume some clever robot that mimics sophisticated human speech, is actually alive. I believe our best bet to find some sort of genuine intelligence and sentience is quantum physics: if only for a lack of plausible alternatives. It also seems extremely coincidental that computing is heading in that direction in any case.