Richard Dawkins: Claude (for one) has 'passed' the Turing Test(telegraph.co.uk) |
Richard Dawkins: Claude (for one) has 'passed' the Turing Test(telegraph.co.uk) |
The one thing Dawkins might not be aware of, in his turn-based exchange is how many actual watts are being expended to polish Claude's presentation. There are whole datacenters worth of iron being hidden behind this exchange. Is this level of 'intelligence' sustainable in the long run when pitted against the 12-24 watt human brain?
It's a hell of a better thing to do than cryptocurrency tho. Proof of work for max greed was not sustainable either.
For instance, consider Searle's Chinese Room counter argument [1]: Millions of humans emulating a computer program isn't the most efficient use of resources either, off course.
Assuming Dawkins made 100 queries over the the weekend we have AI power use 84 Wh, Dawkins brain at say 20W x 48 hrs = 960 Wh.
Of course when you include the rest of the cost of powering a Dawkins including food and heating his house the human energy use goes higher.
In other words, the mechanism may be what consciousness is about, but we can't say anything useful about this as relates to consciousness.
Nitpick: off course we don't really lack a theory of consciousness. It's just that Alan Turing choose to ignore all the existing prior discourse in humanities and philosophy.
I don't see it that way - it's more about awareness of sights sounds feelings thoughts and the like. I've got little idea what mechanism my brain uses and don't think it matters much.
It's like Descartes didn't say I think, therefore I may be but only if the thinking uses biological neurons.
It would be quite interesting if/when someone tries that to see how close it is or isn't to nature.
I'm thinking of the first episode of Alex Garland minisery Devs, where a somewhat brilliant Russian guy demos predicting the exact movements of a bacteria. That would be proof that the model works. And even it it were to mispredict, most of the time, it sounds plausible.