Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Ok, but very few people contest that consciousness is computable. It's basically just Penrose (and other folks without the domain knowledge to engage). This doesn't imply that at any point during all human existence will computing consciousness be economically feasible or worthwhile.

Actual AGI presumably implies a not-brain involved.

And this isn't even broaching the subject of "superintelligence", which I would describe as "superunbelievable".



Until you can create a definition of consciousness which can be tested externally from the tested object, then the whole subject is moot.


It obviously isn't if people are casually bringing up AGI like it's feasible.


AGI has nothing to do with consciousness, AGI is just about intelligence. There is no C for "Consciousness" in the acronym.


I'm not sure what on earth intelligence means if it doesn't imply consciousness. Why do we not consider a calculator intelligent then?


We can ignore the term intelligence if you like. It has too many anthropic connotations. We can use the term generalized goal to action mapper. Humans are great generalized goal to action mappers.

Come up with any goal you want to reach, and some human can but a large dent in the problem. Maybe reach the goal outright.

We already have some nifty artificial goal to action mappers. None of them are generalized to a wide category of goals yet. Maybe some goals need consciousness to be reached, but that isn't a given. We don't really know that. We might be left very unsatisfied in the way an artificial goal to action mapper reaches any goal without consciousness. We might even call it cheating.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: