It's an interesting thought experiment / philosophy / sci fi story premise though; if he spent all those years encoding his own thought processes and decision making into a program, would he have been able to create a convincing facsimile of himself and his "consciousness"? A turing test with a chatbot based on decades of self-reflection.
Stephenson's "Fall; or, Dodge in Hell" deals with the hypothetical digitization of human minds. It has some interesting ideas like some of the synthetic minds deciding to wilfully become a hivemind
You're completely moving the goalposts. And I don't find it interesting at all (I mean, I find the general subject interesting and have delved into it for decades but I don't find this sort of casual question based on no such research, trying to connect it to the wrong thing [Cyc] at all interesting) ... would he have been able to create a convincing facsimile? If and only if the encoding method were effective--that's a tautology. Was Lenat's methodology effective to that end? No, of course not, and that wasn't its intent.
"based on decades of self-reflection"
Daniel Dennett--sadly lost to us--explained in detail why "self-reflection" is not even remotely effective to this end ... our internal processes are almost entirely inaccessible to us.
Some confusion in this thread. I think it would help folks to know that in addition to conservation of energy, our universe has conservation of angular momentum, aka mass spin.
There are like 6 core activities that bind humans together: shared creation of food, myth and music; co habitation, protection, child rearing.
We've done these things ourselves for hundreds of thousands of years. As we are increasingly convinced to buy them for convenience we loose the very things that make us know our connectedness.
So ya, there are real problems caused by the convenience of technology
People will still enjoy making music. Musicians will make music quite regardless of whether anyone is listening or whether there’s recordings or AI available.
Zig is not memory safe. It's one of those "can be more safe than C" modern alternative languages. This includes those various C/C++ alternatives that use a GC or optional one (that users can disable), to provide or increase memory safety. Some of the confusion and drama surrounding Zig, appears to be the vain attempt of marketing it as "safer" than "unsafe Rust". The questionable marketing tactic has sparked numerous arguments and debates.
> difference between C++ and C is that the former is a large multi-paradigm language, while the latter is a minimalist language. These are completely different axes.
> There is no corresponding popular replacement for C that's more minimalist than Rust and memory safe.
Edit: oh, I never read the last bit "and memory safe" -- well ya, that's kind of rust's major advantage.
reply