His point is that if a human can't tell the difference between a human or computer program/AI by the results it produces then it then it passes his test of being indistinguishable from a human, and without delving very deeply into philosophy that will be debated from now until the end of time that's about the best we can do to answer the question of "does an AI think"
And how do you do this with logic?
Quote:
And you think Alan Turing wasn't cheating using an AI written on paper tapes 50 years ago?!?
Eh? What are you talking about?
Quote:
If you push your fingers into a power socket and get an electric shock your not going to do it again because it hurts. A computer would repeatedly do that, even if it were damaging it's circuitry if it were programmed to do so. It doesn't have the capacity to learn, save what's programmed into it. If it's not programmed to avoid a problem then it can't do.
Each action could be given a consequence score, and a predictability score; if the action has a predictably negative consequence, or if the negative consequence is bad enough to negate the potential unpredictability of an action, then it can be seen as detrimental. This can then be generalized to similar actions in other circumstances. That's basically how we learn. Learning is not the problem. Computers can already 'learn' a particular user's preference. It can learn to recognize speech, and convert it to text (and vice versa).
The Turing test, named after the author of the research paper on "Machine Intelligence" in 1949/50 when digital computers were the size of a room and programs were written on punch tapes.
Well what you said seems like double talk and maybe you didnt explain it at all.
The human brain is an analog computor thats self aware, and can self teach.
There is no reason why we cant go that far with our computors and software.
I think what I said is fairly simple:
All the evidence seems to show that we don't have the capacity to learn, save what evolution has given us.
Emphasis added.
I supposed a general set and then defined an exception to that set.
It's like if I said, 'All the students in this school got their GCSEs, save Albert who failed them all.'
It doesn't mean that all the students passed their GCSEs - because Albert didn't - but it's a lot quicker than going 'Jenny passed and James passed and Bert passed ...' You just go 'Everyone except him.'
We can learn, but that capacity seems to be a result of evolution just as the computer's capacity to learn would be the result of its programming - we'd both by limited by the nature of our origins.
The Turing test, named after the author of the research paper on "Machine Intelligence" in 1949/50 when digital computers were the size of a room and programs were written on punch tapes.
I don't know the intricate details of the Turing Test or artificial intelligence, but I must say one thing. We might create machines which can learn and which can understand things like ourselves, but we shall never be able to create machines which will be equal to, or greater than ourselves in that respect.
The difference here is of the Creator-Creation relationship. The Creator always has to be one step ahead of the Creation. A child can create little mud toys, but can the child also create another cihld? No. Similarly, programming and hardware experts can create machines which can learn and progress, but their results would not equal, nor exceed the mental level of those experts themselves.
The possibility of scientists creating machines which would have the learning skills of an average human being is not too far fetched, but then again, those scientists would be too far ahead in mental skills than ordinary human beings.
All the evidence seems to show that we don't have the capacity to learn, save what evolution has given us.
Emphasis added.
I supposed a general set and then defined an exception to that set.
It's like if I said, 'All the students in this school got their GCSEs, save Albert who failed them all.'
It doesn't mean that all the students passed their GCSEs - because Albert didn't - but it's a lot quicker than going 'Jenny passed and James passed and Bert passed ...' You just go 'Everyone except him.'
We can learn, but that capacity seems to be a result of evolution just as the computer's capacity to learn would be the result of its programming - we'd both by limited by the nature of our origins.
Just seems like philosophical double talk mate.
Humans are limited to the planet earth with evolution, but we, the first species to ever learn and understand the environment outside our planet have traveled to the moon, not really an earthly evolutionary thing, if you consider no other creature has ever done it or even thought of it.
l find your philosophical views as double talk and you do it all the time.
If a computor/program becomes self aware, who knows what its real limits are. Because lets face it they dont need food, so space travel to massively vast distances is possible, humans cant do that because of enviromental reasons, so who knows what the limits really are, not to mention humans have not reached there potential yet.
I don't know the intricate details of the Turing Test or artificial intelligence, but I must say one thing. We might create machines which can learn and which can understand things like ourselves, but we shall never be able to create machines which will be equal to, or greater than ourselves in that respect.
The difference here is of the Creator-Creation relationship. The Creator always has to be one step ahead of the Creation. A child can create little mud toys, but can the child also create another child? No. Similarly, programming and hardware experts can create machines which can learn and progress, but their results would not equal, nor exceed the mental level of those experts themselves.
The possibility of scientists creating machines which would have the learning skills of an average human being is not too far fetched, but then again, those scientists would be too far ahead in mental skills than ordinary human beings.
l would say that evidence against what you talk about is out there now in the chess world, l remember the world champ, getting really really pissed of because IBM created a program that could outplay ANY human on this planet at chess, and they proved it by doing it, the computer, though programmed out grew the player in the game, the creator of that program can not beat it, the world champ chess player can not beat it.You and l cannot beat it.
Its a crude ex sample but a true one.
Our program code 20 odd years ago was 20 lines here, 30 lines there, 10 lines here, 40 lines there, now days its gigabytes of code, just wait another 100 to 200 years and the potential is scary.
In this case humans can easily for see our creations surpassing there creator.Even now we cant calculate math anywhere near as fast as a computer, in some areas of specifics, they already surpass us.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Re: Artificial Intelligence 
Science , flies you to the moon. 
Religion , flies you into buildings...
Linear Mode
