OpenEuphoria

Re: webnet & HAL9000

• Posted by rforno at tutopia.com Feb 14, 2002
• 452 views

Did you know that computers think human beings are incapable to be
programmed for AI? ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: "C. K. Lester" <cklester at yahoo.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: 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
>
>
>
>