or even hugely.
On 13 June 2014 19:49, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > The closest I've seen to a computer programme behaving in what might be > called an intelligent manner was in one of Douglas Hofstadter's books. (I > think it designed fonts or something?) At least as he described it, it > seemed to be doing something clever, but nowhere near the level needed to > pass the Turing Test "for real" - but that's the point, I suppose. You > can't expect to write a programme to pass the TT until you've written one > that can do tiny bits of cleverness, and then another one that uses those > tiny bits to be a bit more clever, and so on. In a way this is like the way > that SF writers thought we'd have soon robot servants that were almost > human, and might even rebel ... without realising that the process would > have to be higely, mind-bogglingly incremental. > > > > On 13 June 2014 18:35, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Meh. The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with >> our current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'. It >> is perfectly clear that the Eliza-like program here just has some bunch of >> pre-prepared statements to regurgitate and the programmers have tried to >> wire these responses up to questions in such a way that they appear to be >> legitimate, spontaneous answers. But intelligence consists in the invention >> of those responses. This is always the problem with computer programs, at >> least as they exist today: they really just crystallize acts of human >> intelligence into strict, repeatable procedures. Even chess programs, which >> are arguably the closest thing we have to computer intelligence, depend on >> this crystallized intelligence, because the pruning rules and strategic >> heuristics they rely upon draw on deep human insights that the computer >> could never have arrived at itself. As humans we resemble computers to the >> extent that we have automated our behaviour - when we regurgitate a "good >> how are you?" in response to a social enquiry as to how we are we are >> fundamentally behaving like Eliza. But when we engage in real conversation >> or any other form of novel problem solving, we don't seem very >> computer-like at all, the point that Craig makes (ad nauseam). >> >> On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:20:16 AM UTC+10, John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would >>>> be "doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed >>>> in the first place"? >>>> >>> >>> My answer is "no". So am I a human or a computer? >>> >>> > Has there ever been a robust set of standards? >>>> >>> >>> No, except that whatever procedure you use to judge the level of >>> intelligence of your fellow Human Beings it is only fair that you use the >>> same procedure when judging machines. I admit this is imperfect, humans can >>> turn out to be smarter or dumber than originally thought, but it's the only >>> tool we have for judging such things. If the judge is a idiot then the >>> Turing Test doesn't work very well, or if the subject is a genius but >>> pretending to be a idiot you well also probably end up making the wrong >>> judgement but such is life, you do the best you can with the tools at hand. >>> >>> By the way, for a long time machines have been able to beautifully >>> emulate the behavior of two particular types of humans, those in a coma and >>> those that are dead. >>> >>> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
