By theway, I don't think much of Levesque's criterion either. I think we
will eventually write programs that can game those questions, but they
will not be nearly as smart as a chimp, who could not answer those
questions. Actually, the book proposal I was asked to look at concerned
establishing criteria for determining whether an entity is intelligent.
I have not investigated this matter myself. Maybe this book has
something to say.
Richard E. Neapolitan, Professor
Division of Biomedical Informatics
Department of Preventive Medicine
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 11th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60611
On 8/24/2013 1:46 PM, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote:
Rich et al -
Here is a counter-argument...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/08/why-cant-my-computer-understand-me.html
On Aug 20, 2013, at 9:22 AM, Richard E. Neapolitan wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
One of my publisher'sasked me to review aproposal for a book. The
theme of the book is predicated onthe statement that "it is widely
believed that in the next 10 to 100 years scientists will succeed in
creating human level artificial general intelligence."There is no
research that gives me any reason to believe this. In my recent AI
textbook I took the stance that we have essentially failed at this
endeavor. Does anyone know of anyresearch that would make someone
make such a statement?
Thanks,
Rich
--
Richard E. Neapolitan, Ph.D., Professor
Division of Health and Biomedical Informatics
Department of Preventive Medicine
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 11th floor
Chicago IL 60611
_______________________________________________
uai mailing list
[email protected]
https://secure.engr.oregonstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/uai
_______________________________________________
uai mailing list
[email protected]
https://secure.engr.oregonstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/uai
