On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 6:23 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> And anyway the really important thing isn't if you can detect if the >>> thing you're talking to is a human but if you can detect if the thing >>> you're talking to is intelligent. >>> >> >> > Yes, that is the important thing. That is not what the Turing Test >> asks, though. >> > > I believe the only reason he devised it to test for humanity rather than > intelligence is that he thought if people knew it was a machine most would > never admit it was intelligent regardless of what it did. And I think > Turing was correct about that. > I doesn't take a genius like Turing to figure out that human bias has to be removed from the experiment (as with any scientific experiment). The question is whether the test he devised is relevant. > > >> > and still we don't have HAL 9000. >> > > True, but with Watson we're getting close. > > >> > I fully believe it is possible to have an advanced intelligence without >> a human body >> > > Me too. > > >> > but it will not be a human >> > > Of course not, it will be more than human. > I'm not sure what that means. > > > Even language is interpreted in a very narrow sense with Watson. >> > > Watson can understand elliptical sentences, obscure allusions and > sophisticated wordplay better than I can, > Depends on what you mean by "understand". It can certainly navigate a gigantic semantic network built by connecting the strings extracted from a large corpora of human-generated text. > but maybe that just means my intelligence is even narrower than Watson's. > Watson couldn't have this conversation with me. > > > >> > It can essentially discover the most plausible answer to a question >> > > As I said, to me the most impressive thing was that Watson understood the > question, I don't care as much if he knew the answer or not. > Watson "understanding" a question is not possible in the absence of an answer. I think this is what you don't grasp. Watson cannot speculate on an answer, because it does not understand the question in the broad sense that we mean in the context of human-level intelligence. > > >> > It cannot invent a joke or write a novel. >> > > Most people can't do that either. > Most people can try, they will just be bad at it. They can also try millions of different things with varying degrees of success. They can even improve their skills though deliberate practice at a myriad of things, from snowboarding to theoretical computer science. There is a qualitative chasm between Watson-intelligence and Human-intelligence. > And researchers at the University of Edinburgh made a machine that can > write jokes such as "I like my relationships like I like my source, > open". Well OK maybe it's not a particularly funny joke but it's a start. > Or maybe the computer just didn't tell it right. > There is no task we can think of that some existing algorithm will not perform to a certain degree. The issue is the narrowness. > > http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s0894589/petrovic13unsupervised.pdf > > >> > I believe there will be AIs capable of inventing jokes and writing >> novels, but I also believe they will require a vastly different algorithm. >> Like you, I really look froward to that algorithm being found, >> > > I doubt there will be one grand algorithm that solves the entire problem > of intelligence, instead there will be thousands or millions of smaller > interlocking algorithms, and algorithms that search for the correct > algorithm to search for the correct algorithm to use in a particular > situation. > I suspect that too. I also agree that algorithms that search for algorithms will likely be involved. 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.
