yes. You can even manipulate them. Illusion is often symptom of intelligence.
Errors, illusion, bias, are often caused by some heuristics used to think fast and deeply, at the risk to make errors in rare cases. about operational definition of intelligence, I have the engineer vision, that a system is intelligent when it can solve problem that are not easy to solve for stupid systems. Nassim Nicholas taleb have a chapter also about people like Platonician Socrates who judge that things have no value if they cannot be expressed with words... I agree with him, since many things we do well are not well defined, yet well done. The big error of my generation of engineer, around 80-90 was to focus on an intellectual vision of intelligence (deduction, expert systems, rules...), primate robotics, while Google generation have found that statistics, bayesians systems, neural networks, insectoid robots, team intelligence, works better... 2013/7/4 H Veeder <[email protected]> > If machines can have artificial intelligence can they have artificial > stupidity? > > harry > > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:02 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I said "operational definitions" are crucial to experiments and that's >> virtually by definition. You, yourself, admitted it when you tried to >> escape from an operational definition of intelligence by using art as a >> proxy and then you went ahead and found yourself providing an operational >> definition of art. >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 8:41 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> They are necessary so you can perform experiments. If you don't like an >>>> operational definition then you need to say why. >>>> >>> >>> It seems like it is possible to make progress on a question like this >>> without requiring a formal definition. Perhaps a similar question to >>> whether artificial intelligence is possible is whether computers can create >>> art. A well-conceived experiment might involve a panel of judges who use >>> their experience and intuition, perhaps along with some guidelines, to >>> judge submissions of "art," who then try to decide whether the submissions >>> were from from a person or from a computer. A formal definition might seek >>> to spell out exactly what art is so that we can tell with great assurance >>> whether a computer has produced it. But art is something that is hard to >>> define, and many people produce very poor art. >>> >>> I remember reading about a contest where they had a person who served as >>> a judge on one side of a terminal and either a computer or a person on the >>> other, and the judge had to decide whether he or she was interacting with a >>> computer. This seems like a test and one that can sort out whether >>> artificial intelligence has been achieved to a certain extent (the computer >>> fools most of the judges over a period of trials), without weighing down >>> the challenge with the need to spell out what intelligence is. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> >
