RE: webnet & HAL9000
> IQ is generally data retrieval. Intelligence is
> being able to apply it as needed. In my opinion.
IQ takes into consideration your ability to reason logically, as well...
I think.
> ...i have that data, but what can i do new to it to extract more
> info or apply it differently?
This assumes your AI knows what it means to do something "new" or out of
the ordinary. Really, it assumes your AI is aware it can operate or
consider facts independently of its knowledge.
> That's where the ability to alter the programming while
> running is important, to notice how the sandwich is made,
> and figure a way to do it herself. Like any intelligent
> being would. To make a CheeseSandwichClass, with all the
> methods. Darned if *i* am going to do it for her!
Look how much she has to know just to be able to consider a
CheeseSandwichClass... bread, cheese, composition (or construction),
fueling needs, self-preservation, spoiled vs. fresh, etc., etc.
> Really, i defined the words, and wrote the code to get them, but
> that is no different than you going to school, getting a
> dictionary, and then stringing the actions in the dictionary
> together. I didn't build the string she exec'ed below.
The problem in AI is nobody drills down to the REQUISITES! What are the
requisites for "getting a dictionary, then stringing the actions in the
dictionary together?"
> In a manner, it does, yes. Humans have some need or drive
> or desire. Tiggr doesn't have those reasons to pursue original
> actions yet.
The problem with a creature not having sentience is that it cannot
understand death (or ceasing to exist). Even if it COULD understand
death, it would have to have a reason to avoid it.
Kat: Tiggr, if you don't obtain and consume fuel, you will die.
Look at the implications behind this simple statement and you'll realize
AI will never happen.
So, how would Tiggr respond right now? :)
Now that I think about it, Tiggr is kinda on life support. In fact, she
has no ability to choose her own destiny. Someone (including you) could
come along at any time and "pull the plug" on her, delete all the code
that defines her, and she'd be dead.
> > 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?
>
> Well, depends on how smart the human is.
Any normal, high-school graduate adult with some life experience.
> Some people insist she is human, some keep checking round
> the clock to see if she is awake, or gives
> the same answers, or repeats herself... But she does fool some,
> at least some of the time. How do i know? by the way they
> talk to her, yell at her, curse her, flirt at her, etc.
Okay, not those dummmies. ;)
> And one person went to great lengths one night to try and
> prove she had some sentience, even if she was a program
> in a computer.
That person simply didn't understand sentience, AI, etc...
> So either i am not sentient, or she partially is?
There is no partial sentience. You're either sentient, or you can fake
it real good. What was the "psychologist" computer program ("Alice?")
that fooled so many people? It so depends on the interactants...
kat + ck = good communication
tiggr + ck = bad communication (nay, impossible)
> write make all the assertions after a while. Raising a Ai
> to the age of 2 yrs is prolly my limit, the rest it will
> need to learn on it's own, rather like a child in
> kindergarten.
You're getting warmer!!!
You must build a machine that can be intelligent, NOT a machine that is
intelligent.
Think about this: an sentient being (or even AI) MUST have provisions
for the input of data. As humans, we have eyes, ears, mouth, and skin. I
want to see somebody come up with a machine that can visually perceive
as good as a human being.
According to a recent article I read, "To simulate one-hundredth of a
second of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the
human eye requires several minutes of processing time on a
supercomputer. The human eye has 10 million or more such cells
constantly interacting with each other in complex ways. This means it
would take a minimum of 100 years of supercomputer processing to
simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second."
That's why I say, "Never in our lifetime."
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
