On 13 Jun 2014, at 10:44, Pierz wrote:
Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any
sophisticated piece of modern software such as a modern OS or even
this humble mailing list/forum software we are using is already
"hugely mind-bogglingly incremental". It has evolved over decades of
incremental improvement involving thousands upon thousands of
workers building up layers of increasing abstraction from the
unfriendly silicon goings-on down below. And yet Siri, far from
being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still pretty much dumb as dog-
shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised intelligence
built in. Inspired by "She" I asked her what she was wearing, and
she said, "I can't tell you but it doesn't come off."). Well, I'm
still agnostic on "comp", so I don't have to decide whether this
conspicuous failure represents evidence against computationalism. I
do however consider the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch
(and even our own dear Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains
or something by the end of the century or sooner to be deluded.
Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the computational power required for
human intelligence is already present in a modern laptop; we just
haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I think that is
preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes it.
I think we had the programming breakthrough, by discovering the
universal machine, and I begin to think she is already conscious and
intelligent (perhaps even maximally).
Perhaps even Löbianity is already part of the fall. I take Löbian
machines, like PA or ZF, as conscious as you and me. (yet more
dissociated with respect to our local reality).
Uploading our mind might take one or two centuries, by
nanotechnologies, but this does not mean we will understand our mind.
Copying is just infinitely more easy than understanding. Not all
people will bet on the same level, also.
Bruno
On Friday, June 13, 2014 6:07:56 PM UTC+10, Liz R wrote:
or even hugely.
On 13 June 2014 19:49, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might
be called an intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's
books. (I think it designed fonts or something?) At least as he
described it, it seemed to be doing something clever, but nowhere
near the level needed to pass the Turing Test "for real" - but
that's the point, I suppose. You can't expect to write a programme
to pass the TT until you've written one that can do tiny bits of
cleverness, and then another one that uses those tiny bits to be a
bit more clever, and so on. In a way this is like the way that SF
writers thought we'd have soon robot servants that were almost
human, and might even rebel ... without realising that the process
would have to be higely, mind-bogglingly incremental.
On 13 June 2014 18:35, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com> wrote:
Meh. The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem
with our current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such
'tests'. It is perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just
has some bunch of pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the
programmers have tried to wire these responses up to questions in
such a way that they appear to be legitimate, spontaneous answers.
But intelligence consists in the invention of those responses. This
is always the problem with computer programs, at least as they exist
today: they really just crystallize acts of human intelligence into
strict, repeatable procedures. Even chess programs, which are
arguably the closest thing we have to computer intelligence, depend
on this crystallized intelligence, because the pruning rules and
strategic heuristics they rely upon draw on deep human insights that
the computer could never have arrived at itself. As humans we
resemble computers to the extent that we have automated our
behaviour - when we regurgitate a "good how are you?" in response to
a social enquiry as to how we are we are fundamentally behaving like
Eliza. But when we engage in real conversation or any other form of
novel problem solving, we don't seem very computer-like at all, the
point that Craig makes (ad nauseam).
On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:20:16 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me
would be "doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit
standards existed in the first place"?
My answer is "no". So am I a human or a computer?
> Has there ever been a robust set of standards?
No, except that whatever procedure you use to judge the level of
intelligence of your fellow Human Beings it is only fair that you
use the same procedure when judging machines. I admit this is
imperfect, humans can turn out to be smarter or dumber than
originally thought, but it's the only tool we have for judging such
things. If the judge is a idiot then the Turing Test doesn't work
very well, or if the subject is a genius but pretending to be a
idiot you well also probably end up making the wrong judgement but
such is life, you do the best you can with the tools at hand.
By the way, for a long time machines have been able to beautifully
emulate the behavior of two particular types of humans, those in a
coma and those that are dead.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
