[mewpmewp2]

The argument stays the same though. Your body is reducible to an input/output mechanism.

In terms of complexity, since we haven't solved brain yet, it doesn't matter that much that there's also other parts of the body involved, as we don't even know the exact complexity of the brain, but the argument stays the same.

In theory we are input/output mechanism, possible to emulate if there's enough capacity.

But in addition AGI wouldn't require many traits that humans have since it doesn't need the same evolutionary survival mechanisms. It only needs part of it.

[cal85]

I don't get it. I can see the human body as a system that comprises many input/output mechanisms. (And of course it's possible to emulate such a system given enough compute.) But how can you reduce it to a single "input/output mechanism"? Can you give an example input/output pair for this mechanism?

[xprn]

“The human body” is the single I/O mechanism. Everything deeper than that is an implementation detail

[cal85]

What kind of input/output are you talking about?

[gehwartzen]

Isn't it like saying the human body is a PC which has inputs (ports) and outputs (display, sounds) and the brain is like a CPU which has its own inputs and outputs? and you can always go further i.e the transistors have their own inputs and outputs

[cal85]

If that's what is meant by 'an input/output mechanism' then it seems like a pointless observation. It's just saying "you can do things to it, and you can observe things about it", which is true of pretty much anything.

[anthonypasq]

congratulations, you've just discovered the theory of computation

[simplify]

The problem is we don't know all the inputs, and there is much hidden state that we can't observe. So it isn't very useful to try and model a human after how a computer works.

[jb1991]

In my opinion, a living creature is more than just an input and output mechanism. If I were to think up one way to define consciousness, it would be that it provides output even in the absence of inputs.

[BadCookie]

The ability to experience pleasure and pain seems important. If we’re just input/output mechanisms, then why would killing somebody even matter?

[mewpmewp2]

What do you mean by matter? As species most of us developed bias to not killing because we have better odds of surviving if we work together.

[BadCookie]

I assume that it would “matter” to you if somebody shot up a class of kindergarteners at your local elementary school. That’s what I mean by “matter.”

Maybe you are right and we’re all just selfish and driven by our own desire to survive, but why does it matter to you if you survive if you are just an input/output mechanism? My computer doesn’t care if it gets crushed to bits (I assume).

[mewpmewp2]

Yes, it matters because it's evolutionary bias to protect the young, because historically the trait of protecting youth was more likely to keep those genes spreading.

It matters to me because I have inherent bias to want to survive because that's what was successful through evolution. I'm aware that I have it, but it still exists.

Why does GPT keep generating tokens after a token, should it matter to it whether it would keep responding?

[ChatGTP]

Why exist at all? Because it’s fun.

[_Algernon_]

So does the bias in an artifical neural network. I wouldn't call a ANN conscious just because it has a bias.

[officeplant]

But there is never a lack of input, just varied input.

[adrianN]

So does a random number generator.

[alienicecream]

> In theory we are input/output mechanism, possible to emulate if there's enough capacity.

People used to think that the universe was a deterministic clock-work mechanism, possible to model in theory down to atomic interactions. Now we have things like black holes to nowhere and correlations without causation. So this theory seems at best, a tentative first approximation that doesn't warrant the kind of confidence you declare it with.