Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 28th May 2012 03:53 UTC
General Development FuriousFanBoys interviews Ben Goertzel regarding Artificial Intelligence. Ben started the OpenCog project (an open sourced AI non-profit), acts as an adviser to the Singularity University, and currently bounces back between Hong Kong and Maryland building in-game AI.
Thread beginning with comment 519680
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Cursing Computer
by orfanum on Mon 28th May 2012 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Cursing Computer"
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

Then frankly I do not know why you reintroduced 'intelligence", seemingly confusing the two notions (again) ;) .

I was not explicitly suggesting that the machine's reponse should be in English, as I hope I have subsequently made clear; I am discussing this subject in a predominantly and implicitly English-language forum, so I think your point, while it has some merit as such, is not entirely derived from the substance of the argument I was making, which is: where's the sense of willed, self-known action?

By the way, going back to that particular concept, on what grounds do you think that machines have in actuality achieved intelligence? Don't you mean merely that they have speed and efficiency of calculation on their side? Please explain.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Cursing Computer
by kwan_e on Mon 28th May 2012 12:52 in reply to "RE[4]: Cursing Computer"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Then frankly I do not know why you reintroduced 'intelligence", seemingly confusing the two notions (again) ;) .


Because it was not clear you were not separating those concepts.

I was not explicitly suggesting that the machine's reponse should be in English, as I hope I have subsequently made clear; I am discussing this subject in a predominantly and implicitly English-language forum, so I think your point, while it has some merit as such, is not entirely derived from the substance of the argument I was making, which is: where's the sense of willed, self-known action?


I was going to go somewhere with it, but I guess I'll get straight to the point:

How would a computer behaving as you would expect a human to do mean it was conscious? Unless you have definitely proven that there is only one kind of consciousness and that we're the ultimate expression of it, you can't claim to be the arbiter of consciousness.

By the way, going back to that particular concept, on what grounds do you think that machines have in actuality achieved intelligence? Don't you mean merely that they have speed and efficiency of calculation on their side? Please explain.


I already have explained. Long before you entered the comments. It started with "Does an individual neuron know of the consciousness of the entire network? Likewise, would an individual human know about the consciousness of the entire internetwork?"

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Cursing Computer
by orfanum on Mon 28th May 2012 14:37 in reply to "RE[5]: Cursing Computer"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

"Because it was not clear you were not separating those concepts."

I don't know how I could have been more clear; you seem to operate on the assumption that if you have said it once to your satisfaction, you are not going to inflect what you want to commnicate as further dialogue flows, dialogue which you engaged me in, not the other way about!


"I was going to go somewhere with it, but I guess I'll get straight to the point:

How would a computer behaving as you would expect a human to do mean it was conscious? Unless you have definitely proven that there is only one kind of consciousness and that we're the ultimate expression of it, you can't claim to be the arbiter of consciousness."

What else do you have to go by other than your own linguistic conceptualisations? How can you conceptualise something that has meaning for humans that would have no basis in human thought, human language? Would you apply it the other way round, would you defend a machine's evaluation of our not being smart perhaps despite the potential pitfalls of its own machine-mind constraints? Or would you be biased and consider it would be an a priori greater intelligence and consciousness, since it would be derived from a machine complex?

If there isn't a consciousess that we can comprehend, then it's effectively and formally absent from the human point of view. Proof, if any, would have to be de facto admissible on a human basis.


"I already have explained. Long before you entered the comments. It started with "Does an individual neuron know of the consciousness of the entire network? Likewise, would an individual human know about the consciousness of the entire internetwork?"

This seems to presuppose you have already categorised us as subsumed by the Internetwork - a nice metaphor witha certain ring to it but that's all it is, a figure of speech, I doubt you can 'prove' this either, yet you seem convinced of the argument.

While I still have pencil and paper in hand, no machine will have dominated the information world; I for one think, and do not process algorithms.

Talking to a chatbot would make more sense than continuing with your rather curious premiss that already sees us as second-tier creatures, dependent on machines for our very definition, or the validity of our mindfulness in all the connotations of that word.

Reply Parent Score: 1