[ExI] Oxford scientists edge toward quantum PC with 10b qubits.

[Dave Sill]

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> The question is how many very small slices do you need to build up a
> Strong AI?? The answer seems to be "all of them" that humans have, and

while that is an interesting answer that leads directly to machine
> learning, is it a useful answer? In other words, is what IBM is doing
> with Watson useful? Damn right it is.
>

Of course it is. And it's far more useful than a chess computer.

 > Wikipedia has a pretty good one:
> >   "Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind
> > including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought,
> > understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, learning from past
> > experiences, planning, and problem solving."
>
> By this definition, a computer will never have intelligence because
> someone will say, But the computer doesn't have a "mind". It's all a
> bit circular.


No, that definition says intelligence is a property of the mind (because
that's the only place we've observed it so far), but whether an AI has a
mind or not is different question.


> I have seen individual computer programs that exhibit
> all of the characteristics (one at a time) in that list, but I
> wouldn't consider any of them intelligent, except over a very limited
> domain.
>

Exactly, and that's the key. We've seen single-purpose systems that act
intelligently, but they're not general and they're not intelligent by, e.g.,
the Wikipedia definition.


> > I disagree. Show me a computer that meets the above definition of
> > intelligence at an average human level.
>
> There isn't one. But in 2060 when there is a computer that meets and
> exceeds the above definition on every measurable level and by every
> conceivable test, there will still be people (maybe not you, but some
> people) who will say, but it's all just an elaborate parlor trick. The
> computer isn't REALLY intelligent.
>

So what?

In my experience, anything that escapes AI gets a new name. Pattern
> recognition, computer vision, natural language processing, optical
> character recognition, facial recognition, etc. etc.


Right, because those are all very specific skills.


> So that for all
> practical purposes AI is forever the stuff we don't know how to do
> very well yet.
>

Until we get to the point that we can assemble a system that is
intellectually equivalent to a human.

The first computer that passes the Turing test (and I'm sure there are
> weaker and stronger forms of the Turing test) will no doubt have a
> technology with a name, and that name will probably not be "artificial
> intelligence"...
>

No, it'll be a brand name. :-)

Do the computer programs that generate new compositions in the style
> of (insert your favorite classical composer here) have artificial
> intelligence in that area? Or is it just another technology that has
> escaped AI and gotten a new name?


I don't think they have real intelligence, artificial or otherwise.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110131/4e3745c7/attachment.html>