"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 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
