I think it'll get us closer to Solaris or V'GER than C3P0. This is admittedly not my expertise, but human cognition is a byproduct of millions of years of biological evolution. When you start a system in an environment utterly devoid of biology, the structures and means that will appear have no reason to resemble our own. That was actually Alan Turing's point when he came up with the test: not "are you intelligent" but "can you imitate intelligence:" He saw "intelligence" as an impossible thing to judge; he argued that "imitating intelligence" was easy. I think the processes you're talking about are going to lead to "intelligence" - I'd argue that in many ways, they already have. I don't think they'll ever lead to human intelligence, though. Again, read the Sherry Turkle book.BEAM robotics, but with an AI based on this emergent type of decision-making, which I do believe is the path to C3PO.
"Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?"
I agree with that. However, many animals express an intelligence we can at least relate to. I expect that the same might go for non-biological AI, at least to the degree in which we operate in the same environment, but maybe not. For sure. I don't think there's a difference between intelligence and the perfect imitation of it. It's in the eye of the beholder. It's telling that we can't even agree upon the fundamentals of our own intelligence. We just know it when we see it. I'll add the book. I am starting an actual doc now. I'm not sure if you've read Godel, Escher, Bach, but it's fantastic. The rest of what I've read from Hofstadter are variations on themes outlined in GEB.When you start a system in an environment utterly devoid of biology, the structures and means that will appear have no reason to resemble our own.
He saw "intelligence" as an impossible thing to judge; he argued that "imitating intelligence" was easy. I think the processes you're talking about are going to lead to "intelligence" - I'd argue that in many ways, they already have.
Right: We grew up in the same environment. We breathe the same air, we drink the same water, we bask in the same sun, we experience the same weather, our predators and prey are drawn from the same grab bag. That was my point: we have a long legacy of parallel development with animals. Machine intelligence? We're going to have absolutely nothing in common with it. And I'm not sure we will. When the inception parameters are so wildly different, what we see is not very likely to strike us as "intelligence." My dad has been trying to get me to read Godel Escher Bach for about 30 years now. Maybe one of these days.I agree with that. However, many animals express an intelligence we can at least relate to.
It's telling that we can't even agree upon the fundamentals of our own intelligence. We just know it when we see it.
There's one dialogue particular in it that's revolves around the ideas of your two's discussion: Ant Fugue The fundamental idea being that from a physical point of view, there's nothing unique about neurons firing in a certain pattern. A population of macroscopic organisms / actors in a computer could interact and produce the same patterns, given enough moving parts and the ability to reorganize itself in response to input.