On 11 Feb 2013, at 18:30, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote
> The Watson program is competent, but I doubt it makes sense to say
it is intelligent.
Just like with "God" and "atheist" it looks like we're back at the
tired old game of redefining words. Using the normal meaning of
"intelligent" if somebody can beat you at checkers and chess and
equation solving and Jeopardy then they are more intelligent than
you at those activities.
It is better to use the term "competence". Competence depends on
domain. I use intelligence for a deeper ability which does not need to
be domain dependent. Yet it is needed to develop many sort of
competence.
So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent.
It is competent in jeopardy.
And just today news was released that Watson is well on its way at
becoming better than human doctors at diagnosing disease.
http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/clinical-systems/ibm-watson-helps-doctors-fight-cancer/240148236
Making it competent in that domain.
Intelligence is a more general mind state making it possible to be
flexible, to get jokes, to get bored, to take distance, to be curious,
to find new questions, to develop modesty, ...
I am open to the idea that universal number are initially intelligent,
but lost that intelligence when specializing too much (as they might
lost also their universality).
Intelligence is something emotional, and it relates consciousness and
the many possible competence. Like "universality", intelligence is
domain independent.
> He lacks the self-reference needed to make sense of intelligence,
Watson can do even better than make sense out of intelligence,
Watson can make concrete actions out of intelligence, among many
other things Watson can move chess pieces around in such a way as to
beat you or any other human in a game.
I can beat Watson in chess. Watson, if I remember correctly, is
competent in Jeopardy, and only in Jeopardy. But that's besides the
point. I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see
any of its behavior as reflecting intelligence. Today I see this in
animals and humans. Perhaps plants on some different scales.
Intelligence, like consciousness, cannot be judged by others, unlike
competence. But it can be locally appreciated, though.
Bruno
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
