RE: webnet & HAL9000
Kat wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> That's what i said. "apply as needed" assumes the ability to
> rearrange the data, logically or illogically, as humans can.
You said that applied to intelligence, not IQ. But no biggie.
> > 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?"
>
> Need or desire...
See, you don't even know the requisites, so how can you even be
contemplating full-blown AI?!?!
> > 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.
>
> Knowing about ceasing to function doesn't mean anything.
> The desire to avoid that condition helps tho.
You cannot even desire to avoid that condition if you don't realize what
the condition means! So you are wrong on this point. It is not desire
that matters, it is the knowing to the point of understanding, of
putting into the context of one's own existence.
> > So, how would Tiggr respond right now? :)
>
> To that line? with silence.
Why?
> > 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 put that a bad way. "She'd be dead" should have been, "it would cease
to exist." That's death, but death usually only occurs to something that
was once alive. I can burn up a piece of paper and it would cease to
exist, but we wouldn't say it's dead.
Tiggr is not alive, yet. ;)
> And she wouldn't care, she has no desire to stay "alive".
She has no desire to stay alive because she doesn't know how to put that
(life/death) into the context of her own existence.
In order to "desire to stay alive," one has to understand life vs.
death. Unless you understand that, you won't have a desire one way or
the other. (Even people who DO understand this often times do not desire
to stay alive.) :(
> > That person simply didn't understand sentience, AI, etc...
>
> Well, they went to spirit habitation, like a soul using
> the physical puter to communicate, like your spirit, etc etc..
> It was interesting.
But for us skeptics, it was blah blah blah... right Kat? Don't tell me
you're gettin' all spiritual on us. ;)
> They have, using his figures, 600
> man-years of assertions hand-coded into Cyc.
> I call that a waste. But, they
> made good money doing it.
I call that a waste and the wrong approach... but what do I know?
> > "...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 parallel processing.
You understand, however, that even a child's brain is billions of times
more complex and functional than ANY computer we are conceptualizing
these days...
> The best the Ai could hope for
> is to be accepted as human online.
I hate to be negative, but truth is truth: Your AI will never hope.
Until our scientists (or Kats) start to understand the requisites, they
will always be on the wrong path to AI.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
