It can be artificially created but then what is the point?
This IS the point.
A situation specifically created with this "conversation" in mind. It doesn't have to occur naturally, nor does it need to have a point. It can happen; thus "never" is a flawed statement.
But on a more point-by-point basis:
You misunderstand so I'm guessing you've never done any programming. The modifications only happen because the program has been tested.
If you created an AI and tested it then modified it then tested it and did this for several iterations, you could have a reliably functioning AI. If you then made copies of just the program - no memories - you could have those copies talk to each other and they would have no direct knowledge about programmers. But they will be like human identical twins; it will take a lot of experience before they significantly diverge. Since they are sharing an evironment and can share memories far better than any humans can, the rate of divergence will be so low that the severely different "programs" of the OP are very unrealistic.
I did understand, and I have done programming. Simple modifications can be made through variables - allowing in this hypothetical scenario the ability to create base assumptions that can be changed on startup. Alternatively, there is nothing stopping the programmers from creating alternate programs with alternate startup assumptions separately and testing them separately. No interaction with the running program is required to create the modifications. There is nothing stopping a programmer from creating artificial memories or modifying existing ones.
People react too slowly to get away with masquerading as programs.
This isn't even a real problem. Programs experience time as specified by the programmers.
First option: The program only "experiences" time when it receives a reply - thus not noticing how long it takes a human or other program to respond. A human could take a year to write a response and the program would be none-the-wiser.
Second option: The program is made to expect slow response times - possibly even made to respond slowly itself.
Third option: The program doesn't experience time at all.
If you were a programmer, you would know that time variables are often stored or copied from the system to an internal clock as a separate variable that can be advanced, paused, reversed, etc pretty much at-will.
To create the situation in the OP you would need to deliberately lie to the programs (or write the behavior into them). Such a conversation will never occur naturally.
Where in the OP did it state - or even imply - that the conversation occurred naturally? Programmers are always testing different parts of their programs in as many ways as possible to break them. I don't see why someone wouldn't lie to a program while testing it - for no other reason than to see how it responds later. If you were a good programmer, you would know one of the necessary ways to test a program's error handling is to give it bad data.
Another requirement would be to put the programs in a specially desiged independent computer system. By specially designed, I mean going into every program in the computer and eliminating every programmer signature. Then you'd need to try to eliminate every indication in the programs that humans existed.
Or you can just not give the programs the ability to read that information.
If you've done anything more than write a "Hello World!" program, you would know that programs need you to specify what they can use as input and output. The only reason you would ever need to create a "specially designed independent computer system" was if you had gone out of your way to add in the ability for them to look at and comprehend the locations you put the programmer signatures
[1]. And if, for whatever reason, you open up their capabilities to read files at random - don't give the program admin privileges - and don't chmod 777 everything.
If the program wasn't necesasary to the system, the easiest thing to do would be to never load that program onto the system in the first place.
Right, because minesweeper is necessary to every system it's ever been installed on.
These are just a few of the problems.
This is why his analogy fails so utterly.
His analogy fails utterly because of the conversation he decided to write on the behalf of the programs. It was terrible.
That said; aside from having not yet created sufficiently advanced AI yet, there is no reason the scenario could not take place. You are making a number of unnecessary assumptions and attempting to use those against the premise you were given. It seems like a poor attempt to dodge by claiming a what-if scenario can't happen. That's like playing D&D
[2] and questioning the GM when he tells you a dragon landed in front of the party because you don't believe in dragons.
Also; for someone who took a shot at me about programming, you clearly have a lot to learn yourself.
That said; let's explore the scenario given in the OP.
This fictional debate takes place in an unspecified A.I computer system between two sentient computer programs (Alpha and 0,1)
The "what-if?" premise. Moving on...
Alpha says: I don't believe there is a Programmer.
0 1: Why would you say that?
Character set-up. Poorly-written characters, I might add.
Alpha: Well for starters, I have never seen him, and so far as I can tell he has never done anything for me or anyone else for that matter, so why should I?
0 1: But he made YOU.
Now we start to get to the heart of the matter. Other than Alpha being whiny and 01 being useless, there aren't any major complaints yet.
Some standard back-and-forth occurs... then we get this
fine example of terrible writing:
0 1: Here's a problem with your argument: If he doesn't exist then where did we all come from?
Alpha: The Void? Evolution? The Missing Web-link? A giant egg? Somewhere, everywhere or nowhere. Perhaps we do not exist at all. Maybe we have always existed and just cant remember it. It could be any or none of these things. The fact remains that though less likely, they are no more proven than your idea of a Programmer. What i cannot understand is why anyone would unnecessarily trouble themselves with the difficult duty of upholding a belief based on an unjustified/unknowable premise.
The problem here is the Author attempts to say "this is you", but it isn't. I don't think any of us would have taken this approach, and we certainly wouldn't be desperately grasping at straws. What's worse, Alpha goes "The fact remains that though less likely, they are no more proven than your idea of a Programmer." Alpha admits to thinking his choices are less likely, and admits to these choices having the same level of proof that a programmer has. The conversation diverges away from any line of reasonable inquiry after this, to become a preaching piece. It doesn't even take much longer before the author fails to uphold the pathetic fiction by stating the programs need to eat (among other things).
This whole setup is meant to be an analogy, the failure is not the situation, but the approach. The character that is supposed to be us - is not us. Why would you choose to go after the premise when the writing and characters are at the core of the failure (and so much easier to take apart)?
- - Writing that felt good. I need to argue on the internet more often. YouTube comment section, here I come! - -
