On 9/11/21, Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <[email protected]> wrote: > A digital machine cannot understand. I don't know why we're trying to invoke > a reality, which simply isn't. Calling a dog's tail a leg, does not add up > to it having 5 legs. We're just playing word games with existentialism, > trying to give gestalt to an elective illusion. It's also referred to as; > forcing the issue. > > Give the machine a comprehension test then, using 2nd, and/or 3rd language > proficiency expressions in pseudo-random foreign dialect and un-English > grammar. What result would you get? Understanding, advanced recognition, or > functional failure? > > My guess is, at best an error message stating: "Would you repeat that > please. I don't understand." AI-driven Dragon Dictate, although a > most-useful program, is a prime example of this. The routine would also end > up in a fatal loop. Why? Because it's probably 3X+1 oriented. > > Suppose understanding was the beginning of wisdom, what would understanding > then be? > > I think the more-realistic research question should be: "Could an AGI entity > - even a biomechanical one - be encoded in such a manner as to achieve a > lower-level of recognizable, clinical consciousness (when compared to humans > in general)?"
The reality is that nobody claims their machine is conscious -- but regularly people claim their machine understands, but they don't say what that means > > Or stated differently; considering modern service bots, consciousness can be > faked. How to tell fake from real? > > ________________________________ > From: Mike Archbold <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, 11 September 2021 04:50 > To: AGI <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [agi] UNDERSTANDING -- Part I -- the Survey, online discussion: > Sunday 10 a.m. Pacific Time, evening in Europe, you are invited > > It's an easy question to answer... if we know what the machine > understands, we know what it can do. If we don't know what it > understands, we might not. So that's why we don't want sloppy > definitions of understanding in an opaque age of gigantic neural > networks. > > On 9/10/21, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't understand why we are so hung up on the definition of >> understanding. I think this is like the old debate over whether machines >> could think. Can submarines swim? >> >> Philosophy is arguing about the meanings of words. It is the opposite of >> engineering, which is about solving problems. Define what you want the >> machine to do and figure out how to do it. >> >> I know what it means for a human to understand or think or be conscious. >> For machines it's undefined. What problem does defining them solve? >> Machines learn, predict, and act to satisfy goals. What else do you want >> them to do? >> >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 12:06 AM Mike Archbold <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 9/9/21, WriterOfMinds <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Hey Mike ... I took a look at the Survey doc, and it appears that a >>> > lot >>> of >>> > the opinions are under the wrong names. You've entered my definition >>> > as >>> > James Bowery's, Daniel Jue's definition as mine, and so forth (looks >>> like an >>> > "off by one" sort of error that continues down the document). >>> >>> >>> I think the problem is only that I put the name following the >>> description, right?? I'll switch it around tomorrow so that you see >>> the name first. I quick checked yours and it looked right. >>> >>> >>> > ------------------------------------------ >>> > Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI >>> > Permalink: >>> > >>> https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2ee04a3eb9a964b5-M525b91709c9e58f430cb0c40 >>> > Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription >>> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2ee04a3eb9a964b5-Me16cb79a3d62ff14cdf716d6 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
