[yters]

Why does everyone assume human intelligence is computable? Seems we should be checking that assumption at this point since we've made so little progress, and a definitive answer is much more valuable than this ongoing speculation.

[JacksonGariety]

Philosophers have been saying this for 60 years Hubert Dreyfus' 1972 book "What Computers Can't Do" is a notable example.

[yters]

It's alright, but I don't recall the book articulating actions computers cannot do. It seemed to still leave open the possibility that we can automate all human work. What we need is a precise task that humans can do with ease but we can prove is impossible for any computational device whatsoever.

[JacksonGariety]

My understanding was that he thinks we can potentially automate all human work, just not with computers. A precise task isn't necessary: AI researchers are simply mistaken about the nature of intelligence.

[yters]

Dreyfus doesn't know his comp sci. Everything automatable is computable. The interesting question is whether human intelligence is automatable.

[JacksonGariety]

>everything automatable is computable

why do you suppose this?

[yters]

Everything physical is computable.

[mehh]

Self awareness?

[yters]

That's not a task per se. What I mean is a technical task.

[mehh]

Self awareness?