On 2/12/2013 4:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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
it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful
supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than five
to find and download a free chess playing program on the internet that
on the very machine you're writing your posts on that would beat the
of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson had a sub sub sub
enabled it to play Chess at least as well as Depp Blue,
Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good
program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game and
view of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text and figure out how to
better? I'm not saying that these things are impossible, just that they
been achieved yet.
after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to
Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be
virtually no cost.
But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could ask
a person. Or to go and learn to fish.
> I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see
its behavior as reflecting intelligence.
If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one
in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon so
Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic.
The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like
that they lack human like values and motivations - and deliberately so
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
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.
More fallacious and unsupported assertions. Machines can grow and learn - though of
course in applications we try to give them as much knowledge as we can initially. But
that's why Mars rovers are a good example. The builders and programmers have only limited
knowledge of what will be encountered and so instead of trying to anticipate every
possibility they have to provide for some ability to learn from experience.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.