?
main(){printf(Ah, now I understand!);}
You need a precise test. That is what Turing did.
-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- On Sat, 9/13/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [agi] Artificial humor... P.S
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
--- On Thu, 9/11/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To understand/realise is to be distinguished
from (I would argue) to comprehend statements.
How long are we going to go round and round with this? How do you know if a
machine comprehends something?
Turing explained why he ducked the
Matt,
What are you being so tetchy about? The issue is what it takes for any
agent, human or machine.to understand information .
You give me an extremely complicated and ultimately weird test/paper, which
presupposes that machines, humans and everyone else can only exhibit, and be
tested
--- On Fri, 9/12/08, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
What are you being so tetchy about? The issue is what it
takes for any
agent, human or machine.to understand information .
How are you going to understand the issues behind programming a computer for
human intelligence if
Matt: How are you going to understand the issues behind programming a
computer for human intelligence if you have never programmed a computer?
Matt,
We simply have a big difference of opinion. I'm saying there is no way a
computer [or agent, period] can understand language if it can't
Matt,
To understand/realise is to be distinguished from (I would argue) to
comprehend statements.
The one is to be able to point to the real objects referred to. The other is
merely to be able to offer or find an alternative or dictionary definition
of the statements. A translation. Like the
