On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:49:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>  On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
>  I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997 
>> standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most 
>> powerful supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than 
>> five minutes to find and download a free chess playing program on the 
>> internet that if run on the very machine you're writing your posts on that 
>> would beat the hell out of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson 
>> had a sub sub sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at least as well as 
>> Depp Blue,
>  Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a 
> good chess program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess 
> game and update his view of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text 
> and figure out how to play better? I'm not saying that these things are 
> impossible, just that they haven't been achieved yet.
>>  after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to 
>> be Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be 
>> added at virtually no cost.
>  But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could 
> ask that of a person. Or to go and learn to fish.
>>>  > I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any 
>>> of its behavior as reflecting intelligence. 
>> If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one 
>> second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon 
>> so you don't.
>  Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic.
> The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like 
> intelligence is that they lack human like values and motivations - and 
> deliberately so because we don't want them to be making autonomous 
> decisions based on their internal values.  That's why I usually take 
> something like an advanced Mars rover as an example of intelligence.  Being 
> largely autonomous a Mars rover must have a hierarchy of values that it 
> acts on.

Just because something performs actions doesn't mean that it has values or 
motivations. As you say, "we don't want them to be making autonomous 
decisions based on their internal values" - and they don't, and they 
wouldn't even if we did want that, because there is no internal value 
possible with a machine. Values arise directly and indirectly through 
experience, but a machine is just a collection of parts which embody very 
simple experiences that never evolve or grow.


> Bretn

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.

Reply via email to