RE: Artificial Intelligence article

Sat, 30 Aug 2014 22:27:49 -0700 

 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Platonist Guitar Cowboy
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 7:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence article

 

 

 

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:54 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote:

On 31 August 2014 12:27, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:

On 8/30/2014 4:04 PM, LizR 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. 

 

How do you have a concept of what "Who was Charlamagne?" about?  Isn't a lot of 
of it verbal and relational; stuff Winston does know.  Of course Winston is 
ignorant about a lot of basic things about being a person because it doesn't 
have perceptive sensors and the ability to move and manipulate things.

 

That's the point. Winston or whatever isn't immersed in an environment, or its 
environment only involves abstract relations. So I do have a better idea of who 
charlemagne was, even if I'd never heard of him before.

 

 

Our minds are also immersed in an abstract environment – a reification of the 
“real” world – as delivered to use through our sensorial streams, colored and 
altered by our memories and notional constructs (our beliefs etc.) The 
verbalizing self-aware entity operating within our minds is a dynamic pattern 
of electrical and chemical activity… it is every bit as much abstracted out 
from reality as a hypothetical machine intelligence would also be.

 





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.

Isn't the reason you think that is because its input/output is so limited?  It 
wouldn't be at all difficult to add to Deep Blue's program so that on winning 
it composed a poem of celebration and displayed fireworks on a screen - or even 
set off real fireworks - and on losing it shut down and refused to do anything 
for three days.

 

No, I think that because there's no evidence whatsoever that Deep Blue etc have 
feelings, at least none that I've come across. I'd be happy to be proved wrong 
(which would be a boost for comp, I suppose).

 

The Japanese, especially for some reason, are doing some pretty amazing stuff 
with emotional intelligence for robots… robots that can read human emotions and 
expressions and discern human feelings and also mimic human emotions as well. 
Are these “true” feelings. What is a “true” feeling I ask then?

Just because we experience it… is that the only metric of “trueness”?

 

I'm not sure "comp needs a boost"... this might be horrible ;-) Perhaps a look 
at the game itself would be appropriate at this point because yesterday, the 
current World Champion played White and lost to black. Yes, the dark side won 
this one yesterday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXm_DaG09SE

The engines might be "merely matching/summing tables" but they assess the game 
as winning/loosing pretty much in harmony with our third person assessment of 
the game, which the above link illustrates nicely; which is also why 
Grandmasters and lesser humans use engines to analyze games and check, pun 
intended, their judgement.  

Feelings? We know: It's sad to watch a world champion loose and search for 
dwindling branches in vain. Same for watching an engine. Whether two great 
engines or humans play => fun stories for some, painful ones for others, and 
nice undecided ones in funky explosive draws. 


I'd say yes, chess is partially about matching tables AND partially about 
incredible struggles between good and evil, kings, queens, knights, bishops, 
rook cops, pawns, promotions, sacrifices, tactics, strategy, diagonalization, 
truth and all. And when an engine or human is in winning position: the searches 
for lines in a position light up like Christmas trees.

Does the engine "know" this while coming up with its results/playing? And... do 
we? It's funny we end up with the same notes on the matter though.

 

Again what do we “know”? All we know is what our minds inform us we know… all 
we think is what our minds cause to pop in our heads. We are more similar to 
machines than many would like to imagine themselves as being… it hurts to admit 
there is no divine spark that gives us “true” intelligence… that we may just be 
a collection of dynamic, concurrent algorithms operating within our tightly 
folded sheets.

 


 

-- 
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.

Reply via email to