Seems the AI experts disagree, as I mentioned in the first post:
Do you have reason to think the experts are wrong?
As for your perceptions, if you understand Bostrom's argument, sufficiently advanced simulations will, eventually, be indistinguishable from reality. Even with the VR we have now, I think that claim isn't all that far off, assuming to don't change the progress line we're currently on. That means our perceptions could be fooling us. How would we know?
Dear @lukestokes, I was assuming me, my children and my grandchildren would live to about max 90 - 100 years. My point was about consciensceness, a very philosophical subject and probably the most ill-understood part of being human. This is from the paper:
It seems the experts and I are actually on the same page. From the chart you show here-bove all the experts that think we can never grasp human level intellect good enough to provide machines the tools (algorithmic representations) to simulate it well. Those 'nevers' have been filtered out from the chart you show, which is logic, since 'never' is quite difficult to calculate into a median. The point is, those 'nevers' are actually quite a big portion of the respondents answers and for good reasons.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I often skip right over the word “consciousness” as it’s quite loaded. I see it as some combination of memory, arrousal, and awareness. It may not be as special as we’d like to believe as there are many levels of consciousness throughout the species on this planet.
As to the <20% who say never, you’re right, I shouldn’t skip over those views so quickly. Maybe we won’t ever get there, but having worked with computers since 1996 and having been exposed to neural networks in college, it seems quite plausible to me, so I align with the >80%. From there, creating true-to-life simulations seems inevitable.