Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:40:31 +0100
Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> This is excactly what I disagreed with. Verbalizing is distinct from
> intellectualizing, and even intellect has DQ.
Intellect has DQ yes, but after intellectualizing, a static pattern
of intellectual value is formed. This static "thought" is then
transformed into words.
> Think of poetry! There's
> nothing in the test that says the judges can't ask the participants
> to write a poem. In fact, it encourages it.
Yes, but I don't think the actual words of a poem is Dynamic in any
way. Once written, they don't change. The Quality Event that is
triggered when reading a poem don't come from the poem itself, but
from the "state of mind" it puts the reader in. (Now I'm really
off topic ;-)
> | Ok,
> | this is true for most types of communication but I think the written
> | language is more static than, say the spoken one. You have to think
> | one step further to write a thought than to speak it.
>
> Sure. This sounds like a possible starting point for a rejection of the
> Turing test. You still have to specify excactly _how_ this invalidates
> the Turing test. Why does it make it possible for a non-intelligent
> being to pass the test?
Because I think what we call intelligence involves a great deal of
Dynamic Quality. And with this stripped away by the intellectualizing
and writing, there's nothing left and the true intelligence becomes
more equal to the static artificial intelligence.
> | List all the
> | right answers to the questions? Then it would be quite easy to fake
> | such an intelligence, just as all computer manufacturers tries to
> | optimize their computers to the current Benchmark tests. This is
> | very similar to Doug's rational criticism of the test.
>
> Mhhm. Imagine this:
>
> JUDGE: What does this make you think:
> Snowfall,
> unspeakable, infinite
> loneliness.
>
> How do you list an answer to that?
I think we're really on the same track here. My point was to show
that it is impossible to list the "right" answers because there are
none. If there were, they would be easy to fake. But I think we all
agree that such a faked list of answers hardly would be considered
intelligent.
> | I think the minimum requirement for true AI is that it has to
> | be able to surprise its creators. The answers must not be rationally
> | deducible from the input.
>
> This happens even with something as simple as a web server. Optimizing
> one for full speed can be very difficult. By this criterion alone,
> innumerable programs are already intelligent.
It was a minimum requirement, not sufficient.
> In fact, I once made a Scheme interpreter that sometimes surprised me
> by rebooting my computer in the middle of a computation, and I never
> could figure out what did it. :-)
Know what you mean... better watch that stack depth ;-)
> If you interpret the last sentence strongly enough you have effectively
> excluded all kinds of computing machinery, with the possible exception
> of chaotic and quantum ones.
That's what I'm getting at. I don't think a Turing machine will ever be
considered intelligent because a Turing machine is predictable. A true
intelligence is able to come up with hypotheses never thought of before,
and not deducible from the currently valid axioms.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST