Comments | erron3000: Alan, you'll enjoy this

erron3000

Alan, you'll enjoy this

Jan 22, 2008 17:56

So, I'm writing about a girl named Ada and a robot named Galatea and an ornery old barkeeper named Deuce X. McKenna, and i'm doing research on strong A.I. on Wikipedia to make sure I have my facts at least believable if not right, and I start reading about the Turing test and such, and then I get into the "Chinese Room" thought experiment. John ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

spkr4thedead51 January 23 2008, 01:43:34 UTC

Sorta gets into the Chomskyan idea of universal language. In the philosophy of linguistics, the man is essentially operating under a language in that the chinese characters have an assigned meaning to him, even though it isn't the language that we normally associate with chinese. A computer that interprets the characters and performs actions based on the translations is doing more than the man is. But all it really shows is that a human can perform machine like calculations. Which we knew anyway, ever since a machine was able to perform simple math.

I don't really see that Searle's idea is relevant at all to the idea of AI.

Knowledge & Language vap0rtranz January 23 2008, 05:11:14 UTC

I was going to cite the same, but say that two concepts are conflated here: theories of intelligence (or knowledge) and theories of language. The former is what he's focused on without ever defining what we mean by "intelligent". The later is the core issue because even if something met our definition of intelligence (in a Platonic forms kind of way), it would still need to communicate to us how smart it is. You could muddle the two concepts but it makes the feasibility of A.I. seem too complex to even answer ( ... )

Re: Knowledge & Language spkr4thedead51 January 23 2008, 06:11:11 UTC

It might just be the late hour, but I'm confused as to if you're saying my comment conflates the ideas, or if Searle's idea does. You are probably right either way ( ... )

Re: Knowledge & Language vap0rtranz January 24 2008, 03:10:33 UTC

I'm confused as to if you're saying my comment conflates the ideas

I was actually saying the OP seems to mash all this up in one big heap called "A.I.".

It can't learn and adapt.

I anticipated that someone would bring this up ... but not you. Learning theory opens up that nasty bag of worms called psychology. That's what the article touches on but is too timid to directly engage. Did the man learn to read? This is what you and the OP are talking about. 'How we know' is the most direct inquiry. Is reading essentially behaviorism? Some say learning is mimicking behavior of others. Would a reading comprehension test for A.I. be merely accessing some expected response? This final thought is what the OP jumped to and where I demand that we define intelligence before we go off looking for it (or heaven forbid, go off making it).

This where you stabbed (at my heart!): a true intelligence, and an intelligence that passes the Turing Test can do, is improviseThe implications of this definition for the mentally or physically ( ... )

Re: Knowledge & Language spkr4thedead51 January 24 2008, 03:36:17 UTC

Eesh. I really used "improvise"? I should know better than to post philosophical things late at night, my word use goes to shit. I was going more for "adapt". And this touches on your first point. What happens when the man is fed a sequence of characters that have no specific guideline for what to do? What if that sequence is a valid string? A true intelligence, or a computer which could pass the Turing Test, would be, in my opinion, capable of extrapolating from previous exposure to data, and outputting a valid response ( ... )

Re: Knowledge & Language vap0rtranz January 25 2008, 02:36:29 UTC

Bummer; because that was an awesome thread! You need to stay up late again :)

Re: Knowledge & Language erron3000 January 23 2008, 06:24:06 UTC

here's one. let's say one day the scientist types figure out a way to replace individual neurons and axions with tiny little computer chips. now, these chips maintain the exact same functionality as the parts of the brain they're replacing, and for all intents and purposes there's no significant interruption in consciousness during their... installation. or whatever it would be called. but let's say that eventually a human brain is replaced entirely by these microscopic computer chips, but the patient in question is still jsut as cognizant and 'intelligent' as they were before. artificial intelligence? 'true' intelligence in digital form? what if you could make an exact replica of a human brain, complete with memories and everything, and then hook the sucker up to a robot? artificial intelligence yet?

i firmly believe that we're nothing more than big food-powered robots with amazing parallel processors for brains.

Re: Knowledge & Language spkr4thedead51 January 23 2008, 18:13:24 UTC

Assuming that neurons and axions could be replaced is a big assumption though. ;-)

ps, nice adaption of the ship of theseus

Re: Knowledge & Language erron3000 January 24 2008, 04:06:58 UTC

thats a concept that's always fascinated me. if somehow one day they're able to make artificial body parts that are functionally identical to our current bodies, right down to the brain, would that be another step in the direction of immortality?

the best answer i've ever heard to the problem of the ship of theseus was from my friend adam, who happens to be a sailor. "is it the same ship or not?" "only if it's been in consistent service."

Re: Knowledge & Language vap0rtranz January 24 2008, 03:15:43 UTC

I heard IBM attempting this kind of ... 'neural grafting' from a gnat to one of their supercomputers. It was phenomenal the amount of memory and processing capacity required to mimic something that most humans consider to be acting on sheer instinct. Mimicking instinct ties in with spkr's comments about improvising above.

Re: Knowledge & Language erron3000 January 24 2008, 04:15:40 UTC

i've heard theories that brains are essentially super efficient unimaginably huge beowulf clusters. imagine how dangerous humanity would be if we could harness the processing power of the human brain.

Re: Knowledge & Language vap0rtranz January 25 2008, 02:37:09 UTC

Oh, but we already have! You read Douglas Adams?

Back to all threads