I just realized that Turing talked about a computer that could play the imitation game. So if a computer program was that smart it could easily imitate a human being. A slight change in the Turing definition fixes the problem that you (Matt) mentioned. Jim Bromer.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 6:32 PM Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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-Mb9905f17069d7eba82440333 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
