"Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Compare David and Joe. It's easy to imagine how to program something that
>would act like Joe. Not easy to acccomplish, mind you, but we can easily
>imagine programming a set of behaviors that would enable a machine to act
>like a sexually compulsive rent-boy. That's because it's a fairly limited
>and shallow set of behaviors.
Harumph - I disagree.
I think it's easy to imagine a machine that can understand a natural
language and cultural context, in the same way that it's easy to imagine a
flying pig. We have small words to describe it and we can draw pictures of
it, and we have concepts that, when put together right, give us that.
Getting a machine to comprehend and converse in a natural language and have
a very deep cultural context - like being able to bumb a ride to Rouge City
from a bunch of teenagers with a flat tire - but yet not be capable of
higher emotions, that's difficult to imagine.
Heck, some of our disposable toys are capable of basic emotions. The love
that David portrayed wasn't even a very complex sort of love, almost a
Tamagotchi parody of love. My dog has more compelling interactions with me -
she waits anxiously for me to get home, then runs and tells my wife because
she's so ecstatic; she also tries to dominate me by bringing me toys for her
to play with and assuming dominant poses, but she's happy when I dominate
her instead. She has particular moods in which she prefers to interact with
me or my wife, and would rather go off by herself then interact with the
other. In contrast, David seemed much more limited in his expressions of
love - but not all of the other stuff which is far beyond my puppy.
Joshua
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
