<div class="gmail_quote">2011/1/29 spike <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:spike66@att.net">spike66@att.net</a>></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">(1) to learn, (2) to understand, (3) to make inferences. Two of these have been accomplished and one is difficult to define. A chess program which keeps a memory of which openings it tried and how the game ended, then makes adjustments to its own play is an example of (1) learning.</span></p>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's a chess-specific example of learning. I'm talking about general learning. Can one teach Deep Blue to play checkers? Nope. Then Deep Blue isn't really intelligent.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> Done. (3) Making inferences (depending on how it is defined) is how Watson operates when playing Jeopardy. </span></p>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, that's domain-specific. If I can sit down and chat with Watson, explain things, ask it questions that require it to make inferences, and get answers that demonstrate that it has done that, then I'll count it.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Two down, one to go. (2) To understand. Hmmm, to understand. Well you might have me on that one. I would be tempted to point to humans who clearly do not understand. I don’t understand a lot of things that others get: human emotions for instance.</span></p>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I didn't say "understand everything". There's a wide range of understanding of an enormous range of topics demonstrated by the 6 billions proles on the planet at the moment. None of them understand everything and all of them are human-level intelligent.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"> To argue that (2) to understand is a necessary requisite for intelligence requires further definition.</span></p>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding</a></div><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">>…</span> We may not understand the process today, but I don't think it's beyond our comprehension<span style="color:#1F497D">…</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">Agreed. I argue that it may be remarkably difficult to recognize intelligence if we see it. We may not understand understanding.</span></p>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't think we know everything there is to know about it, but most can tell pretty quickly one someone else doesn't understand something. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">>…</span>BTW, where's this chat-room Eliza that passes the Turing test?<span style="color:#1F497D"> –</span>Dave<span style="color:#1F497D"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D">I don’t know. Does anyone have that? Last time I went looking for it online, it was gone. It’s been at least 6 years ago. A professor rigged up a specialized version of Eliza and set it to go into a teen chat room. His reasoning is that most people who went to college in the 70s or 80s probably played with Eliza, but those who were born after about 1985 might not have even heard of it. Sure enough, most of the teens chatted away with it for a while before becoming suspicious. Many of those who did figure it out did so because the responses were so fast. A lot of the entries were “Damn you type fast.”</span></p>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's a cute story about some people who were duped by a chatbot. That's not exactly a Turing test, where an interviewer is chatting with two entities, one human, one AI, for the purpose of determining which is which. Fooling unsuspecting people is *way* easier than fooling a competent, informed interviewer.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Dave</div><div><br></div></div>