On Sunday, August 31, 2014, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > To be absolutely clear - the "Artificial" in AI refers to the machine > which hosts the intelligence, not to the intelligence itself. > > The problem with machines defeating "Jeopardy" players (I assume this > refers to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeopardy_%28TV_series%29 ?) > is that the machines concerned almost certainly have no concepts of what > the answers were about. Hence they aren't in fact "doing what humans do" > (or at least not most humans do, apart from perhaps *idiots savant*). > Likewise, Deep Junior almost certainly has no concept of what it's doing > when it scores a 3-3 tie aganst Kasparov. It has no concept of itself or > its opponent, or very limited "concepts" embedded in relatively small* data > structures - and it experiences no emotions on winning or losing. > > According to Bruno, at least, its possible for a machine to do all the > above, but I don't think we've got one yet (apart from the ones made all > over the world by unskilled labour, of course). > > *At least I imagine that the human concept of "self" involves more than, > say, a few megabytes. >
How do you know that a machine (or human) really knows what the answers are about? You can ask more questions, but how do you know they really know what *those* answers they give are about? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
