Upvoted for clarifying a possibly important crux. I still have trouble seeing a coherent theory here.
I can see a binary difference between Turing-complete minds and lesser minds, but only if I focus on the infinite memory and implicitly infinite speed of a genuine Turing machine. But you’ve made it clear that’s not what you mean.
When I try to apply that to actual minds, I see a wide range of abilities at general-purpose modeling of the world.
Some of the differences in what I think of as general intelligence are a function of resources, which implies a fairly continuous scale, not a binary distinction.
Other aspects are a function of accumulated knowledge. That’s somewhat lumpier, but still doesn’t look close to a binary difference.
Our ancestors of a couple million years ago had language that enabled them to handle a somewhat larger class of mental tasks than other apes.
Tools such as writing, and new concepts such as the Turing machine, enabled them to model ideas that they’d previously failed to find ways to handle.
I see plenty of hints that other mammals have weaker versions of this abstract thought. I’d be surprised if humans have reached the limits of what is possible.
So, when I try to treat general intelligence as a binary, I alternate between doubting that humans have it, and believing that most animals and LLMs have it.
Hm, I think your objections are mostly similar to the objections cfoster0 is raising in this thread, so in lieu of repeating myself, I’ll just link there.
Do point out if I misunderstood and some of your points are left unaddressed.
Upvoted for clarifying a possibly important crux. I still have trouble seeing a coherent theory here.
I can see a binary difference between Turing-complete minds and lesser minds, but only if I focus on the infinite memory and implicitly infinite speed of a genuine Turing machine. But you’ve made it clear that’s not what you mean.
When I try to apply that to actual minds, I see a wide range of abilities at general-purpose modeling of the world.
Some of the differences in what I think of as general intelligence are a function of resources, which implies a fairly continuous scale, not a binary distinction.
Other aspects are a function of accumulated knowledge. That’s somewhat lumpier, but still doesn’t look close to a binary difference.
Henrich’s books The Secret of Our Success and The WEIRDest People in the World suggest that humans have been gradually building up the ability to handle increasingly abstract problems.
Our ancestors of a couple million years ago had language that enabled them to handle a somewhat larger class of mental tasks than other apes.
Tools such as writing, and new concepts such as the Turing machine, enabled them to model ideas that they’d previously failed to find ways to handle.
I see plenty of hints that other mammals have weaker versions of this abstract thought. I’d be surprised if humans have reached the limits of what is possible.
So, when I try to treat general intelligence as a binary, I alternate between doubting that humans have it, and believing that most animals and LLMs have it.
Hm, I think your objections are mostly similar to the objections cfoster0 is raising in this thread, so in lieu of repeating myself, I’ll just link there.
Do point out if I misunderstood and some of your points are left unaddressed.