> The best a machine can ever do in a Turing test is equal human
> intelligence by being indistinguishable from human. It can never
> exceed it.

This is a clever but specious answer. It is interesting that if a
computer significantly surpassed human intelligence it would be
distinguishable from a human. And my presumption is that once
computers achieve human-like intelligence they will then quickly
surpass human intelligence because they will be able to rapidly access
so much knowledge.

I am reading a book my father told me to read a number of times; the
first time was probably 45 years ago.A book by David Rappaport,
published in 1951. He translated some European texts. One chapter is
about some cognitive tests that Karl Buehler conducted. He asked
people some to figure out the meaning of some sentences and then asked
them to give an account of their inner experiences in solving the
problem.
"Besides thoughts, yet other knowledge is present in our thinking. For
instance, we know whether or not we are on the right track, whether or
not we are approaching our goal, whether the thought occurs to us for
the first time or derives from our memory; we may know even where we
have picked it up; we know how it is related to the one preceding."
Here is an example of one of the problems he asked, but they are not
all like this. This one is particularly appropriate for these kinds of
groups:
"'We depreciate everything that can be explained.'"

If a younger, studious person read that he might take a few seconds to
understand it.  What process of mind would he have to go through.
Although our introspective thoughts on how we came to some conclusion
or understanding are not reliable, they are indicative that there is
more going on than just looking up some interpretation of words and
finding the right encyclopedia reference to find the most likely
answer and it is indicative of some more elaborate mechanism that a
deep neural network. But this kind of question might culminate in
explanations of how we can work out how the words of a sentence are
related and how they shape (or direct) meaning and how we can solve
problems. It is this construction mechanism which will give us insight
to more human-like intelligence, even if the answers are not entirely
correct.
"

Jim Bromer
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:25 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:52 AM Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Human beings make machines that are more powerful than they are, and
> > can do things that they cannot do.
> 
> I pointed this out when someone asked on Quora when machines would
> surpass human intelligence. Machines are already a billion times
> faster than us at math, defeat world champions at chess, Jeopardy, and
> Go, translate hundreds of languages, recognize billions of faces, fly
> spacecraft, etc. Yet we still don't consider them more intelligent
> than us. 
> https://www.quora.com/How-long-will-it-take-until-machines-greatly-supersede-human-level-intelligence/answer/Matt-Mahoney-2
> 
> The short answer is that you can't compare human and machine
> intelligence. The two most widely accepted measures, the Turing test
> and universal intelligence, give vastly different answers.
> 
> The best a machine can ever do in a Turing test is equal human
> intelligence by being indistinguishable from human. It can never
> exceed it.
> 
> The second test is Legg and Hutter's universal intelligence. We can't
> measure accumulated reward over an infinite set of environments, but a
> good practical approximation would be dollars per hour. The tipping
> point would be where machines are earning half of the world's income
> (for their owners), seen as a doubling of world GDP from a baseline
> agricultural society. This happened sometime in the 19th century
> around the inventions of the railroad and telegraph. Today we have a
> 100 fold increase, meaning machines are doing 99% of the work.
> 
> Then where is our singularity? Well, we do have a super-exponential
> growth rate of world knowledge and computing power, and have for
> centuries. I don't know if or when it will peak, but I doubt it will
> be soon enough that we will live to see it.
> 
> --
> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected]

------------------------------------------
Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI
Permalink: 
https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Ta6fce6a7b640886a-Mc471d6be5fbd163dbfa71c84
Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription

Reply via email to