>Is it a computer that is convincing as AGI? Or is it AGI that is essentially like human consciousness in nature?
The former is probably possible, given enough time, computational resources, and ingenuity. The latter is generally regarded as pretty nonsensical.
Author here. I think you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between "acts conscious" and "is conscious", even though in practice there is no way to distinguish between them and thus they are functionally equivalent.
I cannot prove you are not a product of a simulation I am living in, that is to say, your consciousness is nonfalsifiable to me. All I can do is look at how you turn your inputs into outputs.
If a robot can do that, too (what you call "convincing as AGI") then we must assume it is also conscious, because if we don't, we'd have a logical inconsistency on our hands. If I am allowed to safely assume you are sentient, then I must also be allowed to safely assume a robot is sentient if it can convince me, because in both cases I have no method of falsifying the claim to sentience.
Thank you for your comment! I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.
Author here. I think you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between "acts conscious" and "is conscious", even though in practice there is no way to distinguish between them and thus they are functionally equivalent.
I cannot prove you are not a product of a simulation I am living in, that is to say, your consciousness is nonfalsifiable to me. All I can do is look at how you turn your inputs into outputs.
If a robot can do that, too (what you call "convincing as AGI") then we must assume it is also conscious, because if we don't, we'd have a logical inconsistency on our hands. If I am allowed to safely assume you are sentient, then I must also be allowed to safely assume a robot is sentient if it can convince me, because in both cases I have no method of falsifying the claim to sentience.
Thank you for your comment! I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts.