[ExI] Fw: Re: atheists declare religions as scams.

[spike]

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill
>>.  Almost by definition, real intelligence has to be something we do not
understand.  So we keep raising
the bar whenever necessary. spike

 

>.Sorry, no, that's not it at all. Real intelligence is the ability to
learn, to understand, to make inferences.

 

(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.  Done.  (3)
Making inferences (depending on how it is defined) is how Watson operates
when playing Jeopardy.  

 

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.  To argue that (2) to understand is a
necessary requisite for intelligence requires further definition.

 

>. We may not understand the process today, but I don't think it's beyond
our comprehension.

 

Agreed.  I argue that it may be remarkably difficult to recognize
intelligence if we see it.  We may not understand understanding.

 

>.BTW, where's this chat-room Eliza that passes the Turing test? -Dave

 

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."

 

One particular discussions went on for over 50 minutes.  The participant
apparently had no idea he was conversing with software.  He definitely
spilled some of what I would call innermost thoughts.  Hey I did that too
back in 1980, but I knew it was just a game.

 

Some argued this was in a sense a successful Turing Test, others argued it
doesn't count since many of the participants did not know computers could
converse, or simulate conversation.

 

The guy who posted all that stuff may have realized it wasn't quite
legitimate and apparently took it down, but there may be references to it
somewhere, or quotes from that site.

 

It's been long enough we could probably pull the same gag again with a new
set of innocents.

 

Anyone here have that, or a reference to it?

 

spike

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20110129/c81c7629/attachment.html>