RE: webnet & HAL9000
> > "True AI" will not exist in your lifetime. The hardware/software
> > available for IE (intelligence emulation) these days is about
> > 0.0000000000001% of what we need for true AI.
>
> That rather depends on how smart the Ai is in computer languages,
> doesn't
> it?
No. Because when you "lessen" AI, you're just creating an expert system.
Kat, you are so much more intelligent than an expert system it's
incredible. Your brain is such a powerhouse of computing, I doubt we'll
ever reach that level. Now, the Matrix makes me wonder... hehehe.
<cough>
When I think AI, I don't consider IQ. Intelligence is distinct from
knowledge. Of course, at what IQ is a person considered intelligent? Get
a machine to that IQ, let it pass the Turing Test, and you've got fake
intelligence. Real intelligence, however, is going to require much more
and far greater than what we've got today.
> > Besides, there is no intelligence without sentience, and we
> > will NEVER develop something that is sentient.
>
> At least not without a method to execute dynamic strings or files
> at runtime.
This would be so that the machine could... what? Create new thoughts and
act on them? A sort of, "That knowledge doesn't exist in my brain, so
what could/can/should I do with it?"
> After all, if the sum of you was what you were programmed with in
> school,
> you'd be worthless!
Exactly. You can put all the "data" I know into a neural net, but will
it ever be able to deal with "unexpected" situations? In some cases,
yes, like when you have a dentistry expert system. But ask it how to
make a grilled cheese sandwich and... well... there ya go.
> This lends itself to being self aware.
But I would be highly suspect for you to claim that your program was
self aware. It is faking it, trust me. ;)
> It can do things i did not write code for.
Unlikely. In fact, you may be way too deep in your own propaganda here.
;)
> Like this:
> <kat> Tiggr, give the channel a coke
> * [Tiggr] gives #TiggrBot a Coke
>
> There is no code written in her to do that.
Oh, but there is...
> She is aware i was addressing her,
...because she knows the rules of address.
> knew what "give" meant in irc context...
...because she is an IRC expert (chat) system.
> knew what channel i meant...
Again, because of pre-programmed rules.
> picked out a Coke graphic, built the mirc code in a string, and exec'd
> the string. (and she knows my favorites, and can decide if she knows
> your
> favorite Coke or not.)
This is just an advanced database application. If not, how do you
differentiate it from such?
> With the "wrong" command, and a big enough database, Tiggr would get
> into
> a pseudo-endless loop of genetically trying out new code never
> before seen.
Is this what human intelligence does? Are you saying you need better
hardware? :)
> Now, how to convince Rob to make a few expansions along the
> lines of the more traditional Ai languages, but inside the *much*
> easier to use Eu frame?
Can you not do this, Kat? or somebody else here on the list?
I've mentioned the Turing test a few times already in this thread. Kat,
can Tiggr respond like a human in the chat channel? Would she pass for a
human intelligence? Of what age?
-ck
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
