🧵 View Thread
🧵 Thread (11 tweets)
@eshear Yes, but (a) these objects correspond directly to things that can be expressed in a formal language in a way that few other physical things do, and (b) this correspondence is retained as programs move from one physical embodiment to another.
@eshear This is one way of arguing that AIs will not be utility maximizers. AIs are physical objects, and physical objects follow the laws of physics, which do not maximize anything. "But it is coded to maximize something" The code resulted from physical processes
@ollyrobot Yeah, it's the kind of truth that needs to be acknowledged and then you can move past it. The fact you're like "yeah obviously in a sense, but so what" means you aren't the audience for this. Read the other replies...ppl are v confused about the way programs have material form.
@eshear No. Substrate independence (of information, of which computer programs are a subclass) refutes this. Doesn't mean "platonic forms" in the sense of 'independent from all substrates' of course! Information, computation, abstraction are all physical. But emergent. Higher order.
@DavidDeutschOxf @eshear Ryle supposedly used to must to his classes: how many objects are there in a field, two cows or two cows and a pair of cows Saying they are abstract objects instantiated in physical objects is overdetermined