If machines can have artificial intelligence can they have artificial
stupidity?

harry


On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:02 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I said "operational definitions" are crucial to experiments and that's
> virtually by definition.  You, yourself, admitted it when you tried to
> escape from an operational definition of intelligence by using art as a
> proxy and then you went ahead and found yourself providing an operational
> definition of art.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> They are necessary so you can perform experiments.  If you don't like an
>>> operational definition then you need to say why.
>>>
>>
>> It seems like it is possible to make progress on a question like this
>> without requiring a formal definition.  Perhaps a similar question to
>> whether artificial intelligence is possible is whether computers can create
>> art.  A well-conceived experiment might involve a panel of judges who use
>> their experience and intuition, perhaps along with some guidelines, to
>> judge submissions of "art," who then try to decide whether the submissions
>> were from from a person or from a computer.  A formal definition might seek
>> to spell out exactly what art is so that we can tell with great assurance
>> whether a computer has produced it.  But art is something that is hard to
>> define, and many people produce very poor art.
>>
>> I remember reading about a contest where they had a person who served as
>> a judge on one side of a terminal and either a computer or a person on the
>> other, and the judge had to decide whether he or she was interacting with a
>> computer.  This seems like a test and one that can sort out whether
>> artificial intelligence has been achieved to a certain extent (the computer
>> fools most of the judges over a period of trials), without weighing down
>> the challenge with the need to spell out what intelligence is.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to