On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:55:07 -0400
Steve Kinney <ad...@pilobilus.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/20/2018 05:30 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:04:01 -0300
> > Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Computers beat humans at chess in 1997, beat humans at Jeopardy in 2011,
> >> and beat the world's best Go players in 2017. This Monday, a computer won a
> >> far more nuanced competition: debate.
> >
> > sorry let me rephrase :
> >
> >> a computer won
> >
> > so what does that mean? What are the implications of that particular
> > piece of fake news, and glaringly absurd 'fact'? Why is the fake-news-meme
> > 'computer won debate' being pushed? What's the 'tactic and strategy' behind
> > this round of psychological warfare?
>
> FTA:
>
> "In one debate, Noa Ovadia overall nudged two people among a few dozen
> in a human audience toward her perspective that governments shouldn't
> subsidize space exploration. But in the second, Project Debater soundly
> defeated Dan Zafrir, pulling nine audience members toward its stance
> that we should increase the use of telemedicine."
>
> So maybe AI performs best when advocating for the superiority of its
> fellow machines. :D
oh so 'won debate' means : a bunch of naturally retarded, politicaly
iliterate, corrupt humans 'voted' for the 'computer' because it promised them
more 'free' stolen money. I admit I didn't bother reading beyond the first
paragraph of the article and I admit I didn't expect it to be *that* crass.
>
> The gadget in question managed to win a popularity contest of sorts.
by using a time-honored and vulgar technique known as vote buying.
> As
> such I think this does indicate continuing advancement on the Turing
> Test front.
such test beign a meaningless metric for 'intelligence'
> If industrial 'civilization' lasts another decade or so, I
> expect to see AI successfully emulate human conversation -
meaning what?
Back to the propaganda piece, let's apply some basic philosophy to it
"Computers beat humans at chess" - Yes, just like a $1 calculator used
at the grocery store can 'beat' humans at adding the price of potatoes and 10
other items.
Also, "beat[en] at chess" (or other games) is a state clearly defined
by the rules of the games, described in mathematical terms. But there's of
course no equivalent mathematical description for 'won debate'. It also just
happens that human debate *requires* things like intelligence, consciousness
and agency which a string parsing system or 'computer' lacks.
> depending of
> course on context. Where a clever human suspects an AI masquerading as
> human,
> a few well calculated questions should give the AI real problems.
> Which means, real learning opportunities...
for whom? - not for a machine that just puts sentences together. That
thing can't 'learn' and lacks 'intelligence'.
>
> :o)
>
>
>
