I'm not really a transhumanist fanboy . . . meh . . .
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Artificial Intelligence
Just wondering what all you techies (there are a few here) think about AI. A new Turing Test is about to take place:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...intelligenceai
I think that as long as a computer is programmed it's not intelligent or conscious - it's the programmer that's conscious and has provided the options and the intelligence that fools the questioner.
However, were a chip to be invented that allowed a none-programmed machine to think would that be consciousness and would the machine have rights?
Last edited by jasmine; 5th October 2008 at 19:52. Reason: typos
I'm not really a transhumanist fanboy . . . meh . . .
“Left wing, chicken wing, it don't make no difference to me.” - Woody Guthrie
Thanks for the info. Really thought-provoking.
I've avoided looking like a paranoid sci-fi nutcase, so it's really problem at all.
“Left wing, chicken wing, it don't make no difference to me.” - Woody Guthrie
No you haven't. What are you trying to say?I've avoided looking like a paranoid sci-fi nutcase, so it's really problem at all.
I think that all this excitement over technology is somewhat dangerous.
“Left wing, chicken wing, it don't make no difference to me.” - Woody Guthrie
he has transformers pajamas.
But seriously i think advances in AI are positive.
PETER
Human beings weren't meant to sit in little cubicles, starring at computer screens all day, filling out useless forms and listening to eight different bosses drone on about mission statements.
MICHAEL
I told those fudge-packers that I like Michael Bolton's music. God.
Why?
I really can't think of anything else to ask as you could have explained two or three posts previously or don't bother as the case may be.
Okay, well I give up. Enjoy your games with the racist TomK. But do ask yourselves why you find a reactionary so appealing and so entertaining. Perhaps you are more like him than you care to think.
It's called a sense of humor. Don't be so dour.
“Left wing, chicken wing, it don't make no difference to me.” - Woody Guthrie
Were did this come from?
Agreed.
I don't see how that would generate consciousness. It is still a programmed set of responses, the only difference is that the second case allows the machinery to adapt.
Personally I think that how a being is treated by the law is a function not of any internal factors like biology or conciousness but rather of the being's relation to and role in society. What this says for the artificially intelligent robot I'm not sure but it's food for thought.
Girlfren has a "love Jones" for me--but I told her, no.Were did this come from?
I think the Turing test is far too limited. A clever programmer can easily create a series of canned responses that the computer spits out when it see the right series of words typed by the tester.
A definitive test of consciousness would able to test a subject's creative ability and decision making capability.
I think ultimately real AI will be achieved as a synthesis of the "top-down" and "bottom-up" approaches. Pre-programmed responses will be the equivalent of "instincts" while responses made up on the fly will be the equivalent of "interactions" - like when a human drives a car, they are constantly relying on sensory feedback in order to keep the vehicle on the road.
Please elaborate.Originally Posted by Trystan
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
Firstly, it isn't a "new Turing Test", it is computers being subject to the Turing Test. (I thought that someone had come up with a "better" test or something.If you are chatting online with someone you have never meet, and you do so multiple times over a long period of time, and you enjoy the conversations, have fun, discuss philosophy, men, fashion, politics (whatever), and it turns out that this person is actually a computer, would you feel that your conversations suddenly became worth less because it wasn't with a "real" person? If you can't tell the difference, what does it matter if the "intelligence" is "merely" simulated instead of being real?
Just because a computer has been programmed, doesn't mean that it can't think. A computer program that has been created to "teach" itself, can theoretically become more knowledgeable on various subjects, and have complex discussions about these subjects, yet they were still programmed originally.
You under estimate the complexity of the task. Considering spelling differences (and mistakes), the complexity of grammar and so on, the database of "cues", to which "canned responses" would be given, would have to be quite large...
And how would you test that then?
Computers are perfectly capable of "driving" cars, without any real intelligence. Using the same idea of "cues" and "canned responses" that can be used in a conversation. A person is near that zebra crossing, therefore slowdown. They look like they want to cross, therefore stop.
The traffic lights are orange/yellow, therefore stop if safe, the traffic lights are red, stop (if safe). The traffic lights are green, go go go! (But watch out for pedestrians and other cars.)
The Turing Test was created partly as a tongue in cheek response to the question "can machines ever think?" The question is basically meaningless, but the test provides for a way around this meaninglessness. Can a machine think can never be answered (any more then "do other people think?").
To quote myself:
This always reminds me of Charles C. Clarke's aphorism that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The corollary, I guess, is that if you can't distinguish something from magic, it must be sufficiently advanced.
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
# # #
Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho
From model to modeled.
Surely that would be Arthur...
And yes, I have seen on Slashdot someone with a similar corollary in their signature. If you can distinguish something from magic, it is insufficiently advanced.
