nicolasconnault Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Every year there is a contest held which administers the Turing Test- where computers try to fool humans into thinking they are humans. So far, the computer AI's have all failed to pass a threshold of fooling 33% of human judges -- though they've gotten close.This is a rather interesting article on the topic from The Atlantic, Mind vs. Machine by the winner of the "Most Human Human" award from the 2009 contest.This is a great article! I like how it makes the interesting point that, if machines are getting better at passing the Turing test, it may have more to do with how much duller humans are becoming, rather than how much more human computers are becoming
Jeff K. Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 A similar system was used during the movie "Blade Runner"
CV75 Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 This is a great article! I like how it makes the interesting point that, if machines are getting better at passing the Turing test, it may have more to do with how much duller humans are becoming, rather than how much more human computers are becoming Funny you should say that:http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/18/small.vorgan.internet.empathy/index.html?hpt=C2
paulpatter Posted February 19, 2011 Author Posted February 19, 2011 True, but that still gives us an advantage over machines, since we know their limit In truth, we don't know the limit of machines, particularly when linked to ever-expanding computer technology. : I simply repeat what I have said earlier: if you use the most inclusive definition of human intelligence, you cannot quantify it. Therefore you can't compare aggregated computer power/storage with human intelligence at a global or even at an individual level. I totally agree that computers, in their own league, are growing exponentially, and some of their functions overtake what we can do, but they are still in a league of their own and that league isn't worthy of being called intelligence, at least not in the same sense as human intelligence.Perhaps you have altered the ground rules for this discussion; i.e., "if you use the most inclusive definitiion of human intelligence. . . ." I don't think Kurzweil and his followers have promoted AI as meeting that restrictive criterion. In terms of efficiency, data storage, recall, organizational ability, trend analysis, economic forecasting--the list goes on--AI or something akin to it will, in my opinion, far surpass human intelligence. We already rely on microchips/microprocessors to do in minutes what formerly took us hours/days to accomplish. Think, for example, what computer technology has done to help LDS fulfill their obligation to seek after their kindred dead.
nicolasconnault Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 Perhaps you have altered the ground rules for this discussion; i.e., "if you use the most inclusive definitiion of human intelligence. . . ." I don't think Kurzweil and his followers have promoted AI as meeting that restrictive criterion. In terms of efficiency, data storage, recall, organizational ability, trend analysis, economic forecasting--the list goes on--AI or something akin to it will, in my opinion, far surpass human intelligence. We already rely on microchips/microprocessors to do in minutes what formerly took us hours/days to accomplish. Think, for example, what computer technology has done to help LDS fulfill their obligation to seek after their kindred dead.I agree with you, but I don't believe it should be called "Intelligence". That is the crux of the matter, in my opinion.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 As said guys, it is very possible to program an intelligent AI, however AI lacks one thing we have - instinct. It is virtually impossible to program instinct (which is what morals are based off of), and so building an AI that works like a human is unlikely (you would have to hard-program it, which takes alot of work and study). What I do see however, is AI without instinct becoming rather advance. I think however, at that point, we will realize the potential consequence of our actions, and limit our developing capabilities at a certain point. Or at least I hope so.Without instinct and morals thought, is it intelligent? I say no, morals and instinct is how me make intelligent decisions, with morals and instinct you have no intelligence only thinking. I do not doubt that soon computers will be able to think but thinking does not mean something is intelligent. For examples George Bush (43) thinks and plenty of people believe he has no intelligence, the same goes for Barrack Obama, Rosie O'Donald, Sheryl Crow, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, ect.A thinking computer is not an intelligent computer, I do not think we will ever have an intelligent computer.I am sorry for the typo above forgetting a not has a huge impact
paulpatter Posted February 20, 2011 Author Posted February 20, 2011 I agree with you, but I don't believe it should be called "Intelligence". That is the crux of the matter, in my opinion.You make a valid point. The article's author and Kurzweil himself sometimes place "artificial" in front of "intelligence" and sometimes they don't. In San Francisco, according to the article, there's an organization called the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. Kurzweil holds an annual conference there that he founded. It's called the Singularity Summit.
TAO Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Without instinct and morals thought, is it intelligent? In my opinion, it may be intelligent, but not 'human' without these. Either way, it doesn't have the intelligence of God, that's for sure =).I say no, morals and instinct is how me make intelligent decisions, with morals and instinct you have no intelligence only thinking. Nah... morals be based on experience and instinct... it's really not having instinct which is what lets computers down.I do not doubt that soon computers will be able to think but thinking does not mean something is intelligent. To think is to judge... computers already do that. To be intelligent, in my opinion, is to judge on one's own, independent of another source.For examples George Bush (43) thinks and plenty of people believe he has no intelligence, the same goes for Barrack Obama, Rosie O'Donald, Sheryl Crow, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, ect.XD. Agreed.A thinking computer is an intelligent computer, I do not think we will ever have an intelligent computer.The irony of this statement is that it is probably true ! =D
nicolasconnault Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Without instinct and morals thought, is it intelligent? I say no, morals and instinct is how me make intelligent decisions, with morals and instinct you have no intelligence only thinking. I do not doubt that soon computers will be able to think but thinking does not mean something is intelligent. For examples George Bush (43) thinks and plenty of people believe he has no intelligence, the same goes for Barrack Obama, Rosie O'Donald, Sheryl Crow, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, ect.A thinking computer is not an intelligent computer, I do not think we will ever have an intelligent computer.I am sorry for the typo above forgetting a not has a huge impactMore to the point, "computer intelligence", as opposed to "human intelligence", is incapable of making ethical decisions. When presented with an ethical dilemma, a computer will weigh pros and cons, putting a quantitative value on the outcomes of various decisions. It may rely on past decisions (by humans or computers) and use probabilities to choose the past decision that is likely to lead to the best outcomes, considering the current variables. The problem with this approach is that ethical dilemmas don't have a correct answer, even though they are some of the most important decisions humans can make. However, some of these decisions establish precedents that determine the creation of new laws, public opinions and ways of thinking, and ultimately shape the evolution of society. I don't believe that computers should ever replace humans in making ethical decisions. Some things simply cannot be given a mathematical value, such as the worth of a life.This article from 2006 addresses this particular topic. I haven't had time to read all of it yet, so perhaps I will change my mind after reading it
TAO Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 More to the point, "computer intelligence", as opposed to "human intelligence", is incapable of making ethical decisions. When presented with an ethical dilemma, a computer will weigh pros and cons, putting a quantitative value on the outcomes of various decisions. It may rely on past decisions (by humans or computers) and use probabilities to choose the past decision that is likely to lead to the best outcomes, considering the current variables. The problem with this approach is that ethical dilemmas don't have a correct answer, even though they are some of the most important decisions humans can make. However, some of these decisions establish precedents that determine the creation of new laws, public opinions and ways of thinking, and ultimately shape the evolution of society. I don't believe that computers should ever replace humans in making ethical decisions. Some things simply cannot be given a mathematical value, such as the worth of a life.This article from 2006 addresses this particular topic. I haven't had time to read all of it yet, so perhaps I will change my mind after reading it Actually... nic... this is how humans do it to... it's just not as conscious for us... I know I do this =P. The only difference is that humans recieve some of their ethics before they are born, I think, though I could be wrong.
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 The problem with this approach is that ethical dilemmas don't have a correct answer,This is incorrect, ethical dilemmas always have correct answers, even if the correct answer is not chosen each time. Until a computer has morals and instinct it is not intelligent, only thinking.
nicolasconnault Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 This is incorrect, ethical dilemmas always have correct answers, even if the correct answer is not chosen each time. Until a computer has morals and instinct it is not intelligent, only thinking.So what is the correct answer to the Heinz dilemma?
LDS Guy 1986 Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 So what is the correct answer to the Heinz dilemma?A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?[1The answer to this is simple, we find it in Exodus 20:15 "Thou shall not steal". Like I said there is no such thing as an unanswerable moral dilemma, only those who lack the will to follow the Commandments of God when trials in life test them. They don't want to admit they did wrong, so they act like it is unable to be answered either way. There is never and excuse for theft, no matter what the situation. Moral dilemma solved!
nicolasconnault Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.Should Heinz have broken into the store to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?[1The answer to this is simple, we find it in Exodus 20:15 "Thou shall not steal". Like I said there is no such thing as an unanswerable moral dilemma, only those who lack the will to follow the Commandments of God when trials in life test them. They don't want to admit they did wrong, so they act like it is unable to be answered either way. There is never and excuse for theft, no matter what the situation. Moral dilemma solved!Haha! Kohlberg would have something to say about your stage of moral development You make the common mistake of assuming that the scenario contains all the relevant information. It doesn't.
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Source: Raw Story/Agence France-PresseResearchers: Earth will be
Jeff K. Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Heard the same thing in the sixties and early seventies.
USU78 Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Heard the same thing in the sixties and early seventies.Yup.Where will we go when there's no San Fransisco?Better get ready to tie up the boats in Idaho!They tell me the fault line runs right through here.Well, that may be. That may be.What's gonna happen's gonna happen to me.That's the way it appears.Only then it was global cooling instead of global warming.
nicolasconnault Posted February 21, 2011 Posted February 21, 2011 Source: Raw Story/Agence France-PresseResearchers: Earth will be
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.