If you insist on a strict definition that understand must be == exactly like our experience, then yes, you would be correct. But if by understand a definition is relaxed and broadened to include how well a machine seems to respond to context appropriately, then you are incorrect. But this is kind of my point -- that we should be on guard when people start dropping phrases like "my program X understands....". I don't totally disagree with you then. Mike A
On 5/23/13, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike: > Every program is somewhere on the > continuum of understanding > > There isn't a single program that understands anything - that isn't blindly > > obeying orders withour the slightest sense of what they are doing. To talk > about "continuum" is self-deluding hype - AGI hasn't started anywhere/ > anyhow. > > You might make a case that a robot that can pick up a CUP on command is not > > a million miles from starting to understand something - understand what its > > commands refer to - but that AFAIK is about it. > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
