On 2/13/2013 8:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
*Wouldn’t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term than Artificial
Thinking of it objectively, if we have a program which can model a hurricane, we would
call that hurricane a simulation, not an ‘artificial hurricane’. If we modeled any
physical substance, force, or field, we would similarly say that we had simulated
hydrogen or gravity or electromagnetism, not that we had created artificial hydrogen,
No, because the idea of an AI is that it can control a robot or other machine which
interacts with the real world, whereas a simulate AI or hurricane acts within a simulated
By calling it artificial, we also emphasize a kind of obsolete notion of natural vs
man-made as categories of origin.
Why is the distinction between the natural intelligence of a child and the artificial
intelligence of a Mars rover obsolete? The latter is one we create by art, the other is
created by nature.
If we used simulated instead, the measure of intelligence would be framed more modestly
as the degree to which a system meets our expectations (or what we think or assume are
our expectations). Rather than assuming a universal index of intelligent qualities which
is independent from our own human qualities,
But if we measure intelligence strictly relative to human intelligence we will be saying
that visual pattern recognition is intelligence but solving Navier-Stokes equations is
not. This is the anthropocentrism that continually demotes whatever computers can do as
"not really intelligent" even when it was regarded a the apothesis of intelligence
*before* computers could do it.
we could evaluate the success of a particular Turing emulation purely on its merits as a
convincing reflection of intelligence
But there is no one-dimensional measure of intelligence - it's just competence in many
rather than presuming to have replicated an organic conscious experience
I don't think that's a presumption. It's an inference from the incoherence of the idea of
a philosophical zombie.
The cost of losing the promise of imminently mastering awareness would, I think, be
outweighed by the gain of a more scientifically circumspect approach. Putting the
Promethean dream on hold, we could guard against the shadow of its confirmation bias. My
concern is that without such a precaution, the promise of machine intelligence as a
stage 1 simulacrum (a faithful copy of an original, in Baudrillard’s terms
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation>), will be diluted to a stage 3
simulacrum (a copy that masks the absence of a profound reality, where the simulacrum
pretends to be a faithful copy.) --
The assumption that there is a 'profound reality' is what Stathis showed to be
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.