On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:03 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/23/2015 1:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:50 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Kim Jones <[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. > I know, my choice of example was not completely innocent :) > 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. > I didn't know that. I've read a funny story once about Prof. Weizenbaum leaving Eliza running in his office computer. He forgot about a meeting with a salesperson, and the guy thought that Eliza was a chat system with Weizenbaum on the other side. He had a long conversation and tried a sales pitch until he left, frustrated. I can't find it, unfortunately. If anyone knows where it is, I would appreciate it. Telmo. > > 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]. >> 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. > > > -- > 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.
