On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:50 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Kim Jones <kimjo...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > > >> I said it before I'll say it again, only somebody terrified of machine >>> intelligence would make that argument. >> >> >> > Who is making that argument? Not me. Not Bruno. >> > > I flat out don't believe that. Forget about consciousness, nobody would > say as Bruno has that the Turing Test can't even detect intelligence unless > they were terrified of machine intelligence. > I would, and in my experience most AI researchers don't take the Turing Test half as seriously has you do. The efforts to pass it are mostly to get the attention of mainstream media. In my opinion the fundamental problem with the Turing Test is that passing it is an act of deception. The computer has to fake being a human. It's in the same situation that you would be if you had to prove your intelligence by successfully convincing a panel of female fashion models that you are a female fashion model yourself. But perhaps worse, because the computer has no human body, human memories, human emotions, etc. It has to lie. I grant you that it would take intelligence on your part to sell the female fashion model story. So you could argue that the Turing Test detects intelligence, even though it's does not necessarily set a good direction for useful research. I think it's even worse though. Human behavior is full of patterns, that can be exploited by brute force. This is what Watson does, essentially. Watson is more or less a traditional database of character strings with sophisticated indexing and querying algorithms. Watson appears to be an amazing piece of software and I think it displays intelligence, but in a much narrower fashion than the hype surrounding it seem to assume. > It's just intellectual cowardness because he's insisting we use very > different rules when judging if something is intelligent or not depending > on whether that something is made of protoplasm or silicon. > I don't think we do. I propose a different test. I show you a computer program that you can have a conversation with. You talk with it for half an hour and then I tell you I'm going to shut it down forever. It will essentially die. How distressed are you? What if I point a gun at a bonobo monkey? Here's an example where mistreating a robot causes me some distress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w It could be in part because the robot is fairly anatomically close to a mammal, but the sophistication and intent of its movements play an important part. I wouldn't be distressed if it were an inanimate object. > What's next, reserving judgement on whether a person behaved intelligently > until we know the gender and the color of the person's skin? > > All I'm saying is that whatever method we use in judging the intelligence > of our fellow human beings, and we all do it every waking hour of every day > of our lives, we should use the same method in judging machines. > And I'm saying we already do. Telmo. > > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
