On Feb 14, 10:01 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 10:37 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do
> > > anything else than what you already do.
> > Then no AI is fully dumb, since all are adaptive to some extent.
> It doesn't adapt intentionally,
You know it doens't? You know we do?
> it is programmed to imitate
> adaptation. In a sense it's not fully dumb, but it's the trivial sense
> of dumb. In the deeper sense, it literally devoid of understanding or
You know that?
> > > Intelligence is the ability to
> > > make sense of any given context
> > "Any"? Then no human is fully intelligent.
> Right. We have no intelligence in contexts which we can't make sense
> of. We could be as dumb as computers are relative to some higher
> > > and to potentially transcend it, which
> > > is why it can't be programmed or simulated (but it can be imitated
> > > trivially for specific functions). If it weren't that way we would not
> > > be having this discussion.
> > That we are having this discussion does not prove we
> > are infinitely adaptable, as your definition "intelligent" requires.
> We're not infinitely adaptable nor even is intelligence infinitely
So you didn;t mean "any"?
> but sense is. Even non-sense is a kind of sense.
> are having this discussion proves only that we have the potential to
> transcend our own programming.
AIs can transcend their programming by following
their programming-transcending programming.
> Machines don't gather together while we
> aren't watching and try to improve their programming.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at