On 3/23/2015 1:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:50 PM, John Clark <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Kim Jones <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
An interesting choice of example. The test Turing actually proposed was that an AI and a
man both pretend to be a woman. The question was whether you could tell which was which
by conversing with them. So they were both practicing deception.
I agree with you point. One telling point is that programs that have done well in the
Loebner competition make mistakes, i.e. act unintelligently in some ways. This is because
never making a mistake, e.g. a typo, is a sure sign of not being human.
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?
There were protests at MIT when they shut Eliza off.
Brent
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
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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.
