David Deutsch misquotes himself

Conversely,‧I‧have‧settled‧on‧a‧simple‧test‧for‧judging‧claims,‧including‧Dennett’s,‧‧[…]‧to‧have‧explained‧the‧nature‧of‧consciousness‧(or‧any‧other‧computational‧task):‧*if↵

↵

*If‧you‧can’thaven’t‧programprogrammed‧it,‧you‧haven’t‧understood‧it.*

Explanation

Conversely,‧

I‧have‧settled‧on‧a‧simple‧test‧for‧judging‧claims

,‧including‧Dennett’s,‧

‧[…]‧

to‧have‧explained‧the‧nature‧of‧consciousness‧(or‧any‧other‧computational‧task):

‧*if

↵
↵
*If

‧you‧

can’t

haven’t

‧

program

programmed

‧it,‧you‧haven’t‧understood‧it.*

Notes

The added line breaks are unnecessary. The change from “can’t” to “haven’t” changes the meaning. The original meaning is better since Deutsch argues in the same chapter on a related point that whether one actually ever writes let alone runs such a program is irrelevant to determining whether it is an A(G)I if one understands how it works: “In fact, if we had only such an explanation but had not yet seen any output from the program – and even if it had not been written yet – we should still conclude that it was a genuine AI program.” In the same vein, as long as you know how to program an AGI, you’ve necessarily understood how it works. Whether you actually have programmed it is a different matter. One might argue that the quote text wasn’t intended as a quote since on that page there are no quotation marks nor any other visual cues normally used to introduce a quote, such as block-level indentation or a left-hand border. But it does use an ellipsis, so it must have been intended as a quote. Deutsch seems to think that omissions need to be indicated while replacements and other changes do not. Or maybe he thinks he need not be as conscientious when he’s quoting himself (though, to be clear, he’s misquoted others, too). Or maybe both.