Subject:
|
Re: Design
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Dec 2005 03:37:28 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Mr S <SZINN_THE1@YAHOOnospam.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
1378 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve,
I agree, the Turing test is not up to date, and even
in its time did not indicate intelligence accurately,
though I would go so far as to say that those
intelligent programs that might pass the Turing test
won't pass the test of demonstrating all of the
criteria of intelligence as I know them. I do think
that the first intelligent entities will be computer
based rather than robotic based. Each domain
represents an overlapping paradigm of competence for
the other. The simple fact is that there is more
information available to the computer based entity
than there is for the autonomous entity.
Not to lose sight of the thread, it will be a
combination of the 'game' world and the real world
that achieves success, for all the reasons that I've
already stated. I can see an entity that utilizes huge
numbers of standard computers to encapsulate its
intelligence, but the 'wetware' must be correct before
intelligence will happen. Intelligence is the
definition of the mechanism, not its result. My
reference to the 7-second memory man shows that
intelligence happens without memory capacity, and
without social interaction or learning. Trying to boil
it down to some set of facts or statistics does not
preclude either the 'real' world or the 'game' world.
It does preclude inextricable links to either.
Again, mimicry of intelligent behavior is not
intelligence, and thus my problem with both the Turing
and the Chinese tests, as well as others. Neither test
demonstrably assures intelligence on true merit, but
does so by accident. To explain, intelligence was not
understood when either test was developed, and so, by
attrition, I reject both out of hand. Turing tests to
determine if a machine is more intelligent than the
test, while the Chinese experiment 'thinks' about how
to limit intelligence to an algorithm. Intelligence is
about more than this, it is about free will (no Rush
music please)... Intelligence not only acts out of
free will, but because of it. This is the basis of
both the agenda I spoke of, and the attention span. No
software has yet demonstrated either. If you have
links to such information, please feel free to share.
The weak relation to the ID is important in this case.
A computer program, no matter how intelligent it
seems, is not intelligent until it asks why you built
it. This self awareness indicates the agenda, and the
intent of an attention span... that is to say that it
will seek other input if the current input is not
meeting the needs of the goals of the current self
determined agenda. In a 'game' world, intelligence
would not only be a game that is self-determining, but
one that decides how to use the computer it resides
on. This, I'm certain, has not been achieved.
Again, I side with you, whether in the 'real' world,
or the 'game' world, strides toward making sense of
intelligence are real, and are not denegrated by the
environment in which it happens. The trouble that I
see is that it hasn't happened, nor is it likely to
happen with the current theories of intelligence.
So, my point is that while we argue about where
intelligence should or might be, we ignore what
intelligence really is, and its definition. While
seeking answers, we, as a people, have stopped to rave
about imitations of intelligence rather than seek out
its true meaning and definitions. The machine between
your ears defines intelligence, and gives us the
abilty to learn, yet, despite full ownership of that
machine, we have yet to reverse engineer it.
Beause they have the machine between the ears, a deaf,
dumb, mute, quadraplegic is still intelligent, we just
don't have the ability to communicate with them. This
lack of communication dampens our understanding,
despite how or what we know of the limitations. Any
computer system that can replicate the machine betwem
the ears has the ability to be intelligent. It remains
to be seen if such an event can occur in reality.
Both the labratory and the 'real' world are valid
experimental locations at this point. It is the
definition of intelligence that is in question, not
where it should be investigated.
<end rant>
--- steve <sjbaker1@airmail.net> wrote:
> Mr S wrote:
> > In any test of intelligence or test for • intelligence
> > that I have heard of, none pass the last two • points.
> > Yet, somehow, even a 4 month old baby is able to • have
> > both an agenda and an attention span even though • it
> > has failed to learn anything useful to the parents
> > thus far, and in fact, would not be able to pass • the
> > Turing test...
>
> The Turing test only says that a system that can
> pass
> the test should be considered intelligent - not that
> a system that cannot pass the test is not
> intelligent.
>
> This is an important criticism of the test. There
> are a lot of very clever AI programs out there that
> cannot pass the Turing test because (amongst other
> things) they don't know who Santa Claus is. This
> doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't
> intelligent.
>
>
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Design
|
| Do you care to put forth an alternate definition of intelligence? What Turing did, IMSHO, is simply make the point concrete that intelligence is what intelligence does. Navel-gazing focus on the 'qualia' of the 'personal experience' of intelligence (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Design
|
| (...) The Turing test only says that a system that can pass the test should be considered intelligent - not that a system that cannot pass the test is not intelligent. This is an important criticism of the test. There are a lot of very clever AI (...) (19 years ago, 6-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
