Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Jul 2006 22:47 UTC, submitted by Eugenia
Geek stuff, sci-fi... "Artificial intelligence is 50 years old this summer, and while computers can beat the world's best chess players, we still can't get them to think like a 4-year-old. This week in Boston, some of the field's leading practitioners are gathering to examine this most ambitious of computer research fields, which at once has managed to exceed, and fall short of, our grandest expectations."
Thread beginning with comment 144616
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: The brain is not a CPU.
by Tom Janowitz on Wed 19th Jul 2006 19:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The brain is not a CPU."
Tom Janowitz
Member since:
2005-12-05

This sentence about duck etc. is taken from discussion about programming languages - far from intelligence subject. I guess Turing hadn't forseen in what way will the computing science -> evolve <- (pun intended). You could code very sofisticated data base of possible answers, which whould mimick human reactions, but that wouldn't of course be anything that we could call 'intelligent'.

How do I know if someone is intelligent ? First - I was referring to 'intelligence' as a process of ability to perform cognitive processess, to be able to understand at all. Well - I usually assume, that person netxt to me is a human being, a living organism, which resembles in it myself (brain included). And that usually implies some level of intelligence.

If we put some "dumb ass" before computer with a program which is able to make some conversation with humans (text being a medium), then this individual wouldn't probably have easy task recognising if this computer is intelligent or not.

Moreover some people are obviously able to attribute intelligence to objects which inherently can not possess this "feature" (superstitions, religions etc.). It doesn't mean that objects of their perceived intelligence are indeed intelligent. It says more about their "state of mind" instead.

Reply Parent Score: 1

falemagn Member since:
2005-07-06

> This sentence about duck etc. is taken from
> discussion about programming languages - far from
> intelligence subject.

Actually, it's the poet James Whitcomb Riley who said it first, and it had nothing to do with computers at all. I used that quote to illustrate what problem we're dealing with, and how to deal with it.

> I guess Turing hadn't forseen in what way will the
> computing science -> evolve <- (pun intended). You
> could code very sofisticated data base of possible
> answers, which whould mimick human reactions, but
> that wouldn't of course be anything that we could
> call 'intelligent'.

No, you couldn't, that's the point. There's not enough space in the universe to store the infinite amount of possible answers to the infinite amount of possible questions.

> How do I know if someone is intelligent ? First - I
> was referring to 'intelligence' as a process of
> ability to perform cognitive processess, to be able
> to understand at all.

Right, and of course an intelligent person, by definition, posseses that ability, doesn't she?

> Well - I usually assume, that person netxt to me is a
> human being, a living organism, which resembles in it
> myself (brain included).
> And that usually implies some level of intelligence.

Sorry, but you assume that an entity that looks similar to you implies that entity has some level of intelligenge? How's that, then, any different from the duck quote?

> if we put some "dumb ass" before computer with a
> program which is able to make some conversation with
> humans (text being a medium), then this individual
> wouldn't probably have easy task recognising if this
> computer is intelligent or not.

You're saying a "dumbass" is not intelligent? So, a person is either intelligent or it isn't? It appears to me that there are many degrees of intelligence, not just 2. A person not being able to recognize an artificial entity as artificial, implies that the intelligence of that entity is at least on par of the one of the person.

Think of it, and you'll realize that's exactly the process you undertake any time you speak with someone on the phone.

> Moreover some people are obviously able to attribute
> intelligence to objects which inherently can not
> possess this "feature" (superstitions, religions
> etc.). It doesn't mean that objects of their
> perceived intelligence are indeed intelligent. It
> says more about their "state of mind" instead.

Never seen anyone attributing some kind of intelligence to any object, really. Any examples of such "intelligence" you're talking about?

Reply Parent Score: 1

Tom Janowitz Member since:
2005-12-05

Actually, it's the poet James Whitcomb Riley who said it first, and it had nothing to do with computers at all.

I didn't say who said it first, but assumed you are reffering to the discussion about strong vs weak typing , and since this is site devoted to operating systems and not poetry, this wasn't that far fetched after all. On a side note : good to know it - thanks.


No, you couldn't, that's the point. There's not enough space in the universe to store the infinite amount of possible answers to the infinite amount of possible questions.

Usually there is more than just one correct answer, if you are not closely fallowing logicaly correct statements. Most questions and answers are probably not the most acurate ones. And show me one person who will be able to ask every single one question out of this infinite. Single man's knowledge is usually very limited.


Right, and of course an intelligent person, by definition, posseses that ability, doesn't she?

Yes, but I wanted to know that we are talking about the same thing. What's wrong with that ?


Sorry, but you assume that an entity that looks similar to you implies that entity has some level of intelligenge?

When it has two legs (not really necessary), two hands (not obligatory, but...) head, and talks to me, than I assume it is capable of thinking ... yes.


You're saying a "dumbass" is not intelligent?

I was trying to say, that "dumbass" will have really huge problem deciding whether he is dealing with intelligent entity or not - he wouldn't probably know what answers to ask to reveal the true.


It appears to me that there are many degrees of intelligence, not just 2

Now you are REALLY nitpicking. If you really think, that that's what I wanted to say ...


A person not being able to recognize an artificial entity as artificial, implies that the intelligence of that entity is at least on par of the one of the person.

I do not agree. You could apply very complex (in fact it could be infinitely complex) parser (which in itself is NOT intelligent) to the questions being asked. This combined with set of rules "understood" by a program could make it look like intelligent, while obviously being not.


Think of it, and you'll realize that's exactly the process you undertake any time you speak with someone on the phone.

No. You assume, that the "person" on the other end of the phone is actually the one which he/she claims he/she is. I assume, but never can be absolute certain - how then can I be sure of the intelligence ? To little information, but judging by the probability of such an event (my interlocutor being not being intelligent being I know of) I conveniently assume, that is not the case. But how can you be sure ?


Never seen anyone attributing some kind of intelligence to any object, really. Any examples of such "intelligence" you're talking about?

Every "supernatural" thing can be (I think) perceived as an example. The whole religion stuff is also, but I don't want to go this topic right now if you don't mind.

Maybe I am wrong, but I have a fealing, that this discussion became more of a flamewar, than it should be.

Reply Parent Score: 1