I think that some quite important philosofical questions are raised by Steve's posting. I don't know BTW how you got it. I monitor all correspondence to the group, and I did not see it.
The Turing test is not in fact a test of intelligence, it is a test of similarity with the human. Hence for a machine to be truly Turing it would have to make mistakes. Now any "*useful*" system will be made as intelligent as we can make it. The TT will be seen to be an irrelevancy. Philosophical question no 1 :- How useful is the TT. As I said in my correspondence With Jan Klouk, the human being is stupid, often dangerously stupid. Philosophical question 2 - Would passing the TT assume human stupidity and if so would a Turing machine be dangerous? Not necessarily, the Turing machine could talk about things like jihad without ultimately identifying with it. Philosophical question 3 :- Would a TM be a psychologist? I think it would have to be. Could a TM become part of a population simulation that would give us political insights. These 3 questions seem to me to be the really interesting ones. - Ian Parker On 6 August 2010 18:09, John G. Rose <johnr...@polyplexic.com> wrote: > "statements of stupidity" - some of these are examples of cramming > sophisticated thoughts into simplistic compressed text. Language is both > intelligence enhancing and limiting. Human language is a protocol between > agents. So there is minimalist data transfer, "I had no choice but to ..." > is a compressed summary of potentially vastly complex issues. The mind gets > hung-up sometimes on this language of ours. Better off at times to think > less using English language and express oneself with a wider spectrum > communiqué. Doing a dance and throwing paint in the air for example, as some > **primitive** cultures actually do, conveys information also and is medium > of expression rather than using a restrictive human chat protocol. > > > > BTW the rules of etiquette of the human language "protocol" are even more > potentially restricting though necessary for efficient and standardized data > transfer to occur. Like, TCP/IP for example. The "Etiquette" in TCP/IP is > like an OSI layer, akin to human language etiquette. > > > > John > > > > > > *From:* Steve Richfield [mailto:steve.richfi...@gmail.com] > > To All, > > I have posted plenty about "statements of ignorance", our probable > inability to comprehend what an advanced intelligence might be "thinking", > heidenbugs, etc. I am now wrestling with a new (to me) concept that > hopefully others here can shed some light on. > > People often say things that indicate their limited mental capacity, or at > least their inability to comprehend specific situations. > > 1) One of my favorites are people who say "I had no choice but to ...", > which of course indicates that they are clearly intellectually challenged > because there are ALWAYS other choices, though it may be difficult to find > one that is in all respects superior. While theoretically this statement > could possibly be correct, in practice I have never found this to be the > case. > > 2) Another one recently from this very forum was "If it sounds too good to > be true, it probably is". This may be theoretically true, but in fact was, > as usual, made as a statement as to why the author was summarily dismissing > an apparent opportunity of GREAT value. This dismissal of something BECAUSE > of its great value would seem to severely limit the authors prospects for > success in life, which probably explains why he spends so much time here > challenging others who ARE doing something with their lives. > > 3) I used to evaluate inventions for some venture capitalists. Sometimes I > would find that some basic law of physics, e.g. conservation of energy, > would have to be violated for the thing to work. When I explained this to > the inventors, their inevitable reply was "Yea, and they also said that the > Wright Brothers' plane would never fly". To this, I explained that the > Wright Brothers had invested ~200 hours of effort working with their crude > homemade wind tunnel, and ask what the inventors have done to prove that > their own invention would work. > > 4) One old stupid standby, spoken when you have make a clear point that > shows that their argument is full of holes "That is just your opinion". No, > it is a proven fact for you to accept or refute. > > 5) Perhaps you have your own pet "statements of stupidity"? I suspect that > there may be enough of these to dismiss some significant fraction of > prospective users of beyond-human-capability (I just hate the word > "intelligence") programs. > > In short, semantic analysis of these statements typically would NOT find > them to be conspicuously false, and hence even an AGI would be tempted to > accept them. However, their use almost universally indicates some > short-circuit in thinking. The present Dr. Eliza program could easily > recognize such statements. > > OK, so what? What should an AI program do when it encounters a stupid user? > Should some attempt be made to explain stupidity to someone who is almost > certainly incapable of comprehending their own stupidity? "Stupidity is > forever" is probably true, especially when expressed by an adult. > > Note my own dismissal of a some past posters for insufficient mental > ability to understand certain subjects, whereupon they invariably come back > repeating the SAME flawed logic, after I carefully explained the breaks in > their logic. Clearly, I was just wasting my effort by continuing to interact > with these people. > > Note that providing a stupid user with ANY output is probably a mistake, > because they will almost certainly misconstrue it in some way. Perhaps it > might be possible to "dumb down" the output to preschool-level, at least > that (small) part of the output that can be accurately stated in preschool > terms. > > Eventually as computers continue to self-evolve, we will ALL be categorized > as some sort of stupid, and receive stupid-adapted output. > > I wonder whether, ultimately, computers will have ANYTHING to say to us, > like any more than we now say to our dogs. > > Perhaps the final winner of the Reverse Turing Test will remain completely > silent?! > > "You don't explain to your dog why you can't pay the rent" from *The Fall > of Colossus*. > > Any thoughts? > > Steve > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
