/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11353606
>learned to laugh at what is funny from behavior cues, without actually finding anything funny
Wait this isn't what everyone is doing? I thought it was just polite.

>>11353611
no

>>11353606
>Strong AI, sentient computers, is the final form of autism
nope, this post is

>>11355049
Go away, kid.

>>11353606
I don't think you know what autism is.

>>11355055
So your strategy is to be rid of an anon knowing what autism is? So the reasoning in the OP is pretty much airtight.

>>11353606
>>11355059
>>11355055
>I don't know what strong AI is
>I don't know what AI is in general
>I don't know what consciousness is
>I don't know what autism is

>I'll make a random statement including all those concepts

>>11355073
Argue, than, that strong AI is actually capable of finding something funny.

>>11355073
>e02.jpg
Clearly got this image from knowyourmeme. embarrassing

>>11355089
what is google search
>actually collects images on his drive, like an autist
absolutely cringeworthy

>>11355092
Kid, you need to stop incorrectly inferring that if I don't agree with something, then I must believe whatever you perceive to be the opposite, at least if your want to be less conspicuous. Also, how could I be an autist and not know what autism is.
>cringeworthy
And derivatives of this world are normalfag-tier. Stop posting it in every thread, if you insist upon thinking I don't know you're underage.

>>11355080
The onus is on you that human behaviour, qualia, and logic isn't an emergent behaviour demonstrated by sufficiently complex systems. (remember, we have systems with varying complexity already - it's called animals, and we can measure their "approximation" to human intelligence and social capcities in edge cases such as great apes/chimps.)
If you do concede the first point, you'll have to demonstrate that the complexity in such a system is not replicable outside of biological means (a stance shared by preachers, which in the end does sound right for a social science practitioner who'd take it onto himself to "identify autism outside of human intelligence")

>>11355143
>The onus is on you
OK, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Now, if your claim is otherwise, the burden is on you to prove it.

The purpose of the OP is to inspire empathetic absurdity when thinking about experiencing humor vs. imitating it. Proponents of strong ai are claiming genuine experience and qualia are a strong emergent property of complexity and imitation. My official position is that this is not likely but not unlikely, until I can be bothered to finish my argument from consciousness being a state. If your position is anything more than this, then the burden of proof is on you.

ocd
>>11355143
>The onus is on you
OK, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Now, if your claim is otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

The purpose of the OP is to inspire empathetic absurdity when thinking about experiencing humor vs. imitating it. Proponents of strong ai are claiming genuine experience and qualia are a strong emergent property of complexity and imitation. My official position is that this is not likely but not unlikely, until I can be bothered to finish my argument from consciousness being a state. If your position is anything more than this, then the burden of proof is on you.

>>11355210
Not that guy but
The man shuffling the papers in the Chinese room argument is a complete red herring. The question is not whether the man understands Chinese, but how could consciousness arise from a guy shuffling a bunch of papers following some preset rules. This does indeed seem mysterious and at face value it seems implausible it could happen, but how is it any less mysterious how can a bunch of neurons firing in the brain do the same thing? In each case there's just mundane physical objects, each of which don't individually seem to possess the relevant consciousness, doing complex stuff.