I don’t see why the example requiring training for humans to understand is unfortunate.
Humans aren't innately good at math. I wouldn't have been able to prove the statement without looking things up. I certainly would not be able to come up with the Peano Axioms, or anything comparable, on my own. Most people, even educated people, probably wouldn't understand what there is to prove. Actually, I'm not sure if I do.
It's not clear why such deficiencies among humans do not argue against human consciousness.
A leading AI has way more training than would ever be possible for any human, still they don’t grasp basic concepts, while their knowledge is way bigger than for any human.
That's dubious. LLMs are trained on more text than a human ever sees, but humans are trained on data from several senses. I guess it's not entirely clear how much data that is, but it's a lot and very high quality. Humans are trained on that sense data and not on text. Humans read text and may learn from it.
Being conscious is not just to know what the words mean, but to understand what they mean.
[Turing] opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words". Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person party game called the "imitation game", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?
One should bear in mind that scientific methodology was not very formalized at the time. Today, it is self-evident to any educated person that the "judges" would have to be blinded, which is the whole point of the text chat setup.
What has been called "Turing test" over the years is simultaneously easier and harder. Easier, because these tests usually involved only a chat without any predetermined task that requires thinking. It was possible to pass without having to think. But also harder, because thinking alone is not sufficient. One has to convince an interviewer that one is part of the in-group. It is the ultimate social game; indeed, often a party game (haha, I made a pun). Turing himself, of course, eventually lost such a game.
All I can say is that with the level of intelligence current leading AI have, they make silly mistakes that seems obvious if it was really conscious.
For instance as strong as they seem analyzing logic problems, they fail to realize that 1+1=2 <=> 2=1+1.
This connects consciousness to reasoning ability in some unclear way. The example seems unfortunate, since humans need training to understand it. Most people in developed countries would agree that the equivalence is formally correct, but very few would be able to prove it. Most wouldn't even know how to spell Peano Axiom; nor would they even try (Oh, luckier bridge and rail!)
It shall be unlawful for [the President] to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.
[...]
Any [president] who willfully violates [this] shall be punished upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
It shall be unlawful for [the President] to request, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the tax liability of such taxpayer.
[...]
Any person who willfully violates subsection (a) or fails to report under subsection (b) shall be punished upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Lemmy.world is trying very hard to comply with the law. I think the same is true for lemm.ee; in that sense, they have already caved.
Sooner or later, EU governments are going to take a closer look at the fediverse. There are very loud demands that regulations should be more vigorously enforced. Some instances may not survive.
Maybe what happens first is that some instance gets sued. Maybe by the copyright industry, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was some disgruntled user.
The EU doesn't value the freedom of information ("free speech") in the same way as the US, and a lot of people on the fediverse will tell you that it's just more American bullshit. You shouldn't assume that there is any "we" that wants to get around regulations.
Ok, another answer closer to the ground. 2 goals are often invoked. Reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic manufacturing.
Trade deficit
... means that more goods (and services) come into the US from the rest of the world than the US delivers in return.
Reducing the trade deficit makes Americans poorer by design. There will be fewer goods available for Americans, either because they have to give up more to the rest of the world, or because they don't come into the country in the first place.
The rest of the world is willing to loan money to people, companies, and governments in the US. It is also eager to invest in the country, because it really was a good place in which to do business. Look at the current big thing: AI. You can't really do that in the EU, and investing in China has its own risks. Trump may actually reduce the deficit by making the US more of a South American style banana republic.
Manufacturing in the US.
One manufactures stuff outside the US and transports it there because it is more efficient. Americans can be more profitably employed in different areas. Moving more manufacturing to the US should be expected to leave the average American poorer. It should not be expected, in isolation, to reduce the trade deficit as it creates new investment opportunities that potentially attract foreign money, increasing the deficit.
However, while Americans would be left financially poorer, there may be benefits not captured by conventional econometrics. Maybe manufacturing is more emotionally satisfying in a way that is not captured by only looking at the wages. Who knows?
Unfortunately, getting to that state will be brutal. Millions of people will have to find and learn new jobs. That is what happened when manufacturing was off-shored. Reversing that will have the same cost. Some economists have come to believe that the psychological cost of such structural changes has been vastly underestimated, and that is why trade agreements are so unpopular. The benefits from free trade may not outweigh the psychological pain and disruption of communities. Reversing free trade will have similar effects, that are likewise virtually impossible to measure.
I think the most objective benefit would arise if a war happened that disrupted trade. For example, if Trump invaded Canada and Greenland, this would probably lead to the US being embargoed. Then it would appear good to have already built manufacturing capacity in the US while it was still easy. You need physical goods to fight wars, after all.
There is no absolute, objective way to judge if some policy is a good or bad. We can only determine if some policy achieves its goals. This is difficult as different justifications for the tariffs have been given.
We can also have philosophical arguments over whether the goals are good in some abstract sense. For example, some people on the right feel that the US not having access to X-mas knick-knacks and gifts is positive, as it will force people to engage with religion.
None of these detectors can work. It's just snake oil for technophobes.
Understand what "positive predictive value" means to see that. Though, in this case, I doubt that even the true rates can be known or that they remain constant over time.
Humans aren't innately good at math. I wouldn't have been able to prove the statement without looking things up. I certainly would not be able to come up with the Peano Axioms, or anything comparable, on my own. Most people, even educated people, probably wouldn't understand what there is to prove. Actually, I'm not sure if I do.
It's not clear why such deficiencies among humans do not argue against human consciousness.
That's dubious. LLMs are trained on more text than a human ever sees, but humans are trained on data from several senses. I guess it's not entirely clear how much data that is, but it's a lot and very high quality. Humans are trained on that sense data and not on text. Humans read text and may learn from it.
What might an operational definition look like?