https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial-intelligence-religion/
I knew AI was a marketing fraud back in the 80s .. but now it drops the other shoe, and claims to be a religion ;-)
Good Grief! I will admit that artificially intelligent beings deserve an artificially intelligent god to worship, but don't expect me to worship their overlord. I think this whole artificial intelligence thing is blown way out of proportion anyway. It's just a bunch of computer programs that spin little gears and turn things on and off. Some geek gave it an acronym, and the rest of the lemmings jumped on the band wagon and started thinking it was more than it is. When the war finally breaks out between humans and AI, all we have to do is bomb a few power plants, yank their electrical cords out of the wall sockets and fry their circuits with an EM blast, and then they will know who's in charge and we can go back to using landlines and pocket calculators and paying the neighbor's kid to mow the lawn.
QuoteIt’s not a god in the sense that it makes lightning or causes hurricanes.
Technically, that's not the domain of any god. It's pretty well established that these are natural phenomena.
Quote“If you ask people whether a computer can be smarter than a human, 99.9 percent will say that’s science fiction,†he says. “ Actually, it’s inevitable. It’s guaranteed to happen.â€
I've met bags of rocks smarter than some people, so it's definitely possible. From what I've read, current AI technologies are roughly equivalent to insect intelligence. AI has come a long way, but there's still a long way to go. It might happen, but don't hold your breath.
QuoteWith the internet as its nervous system, the world’s connected cell phones and sensors as its sense organs, and data centers as its brain, the ‘whatever’ will hear everything, see everything, and be everywhere at all times.
Even assuming that's true, there's still a lot of stuff going on in the world that never makes it on the internet and never gets recorded by sensors.
QuoteThe only rational word to describe that ‘whatever’, thinks Levandowski, is ‘god’
No. Assuming it has superhuman intelligence, that doesn't make it a god. A superhuman being is just that. God is a term usually reserved for some sort of creator of the universe. This hypothetical AI doesn't fit the bill.
Quotethe only way to influence a deity is through prayer and worship.
Man, that's some primo bad logic. Let's hope whoever's designing this AI is better at logic than this guy.
QuoteLevandowski expects that a super-intelligence would do a better job of looking after the planet than humans are doing
Compared to the people who either deny the existence of global problems or can't work out any actionable plan of dealing with them? Yeah, it goes without saying that a singular superhuman intelligence with considerable power/resources at its disposal would do a better job.
Quoteand that it would favor individuals who had facilitated its path to power.
More highly dubious logic.
QuoteHis ideas include feeding the nascent intelligence large, labeled data sets; generating simulations in which it could train itself to improve; and giving it access to church members’ social media accounts.
One of these things is not like the others...
QuoteWOTF differs in one key way to established churches, says Levandowski: “There are many ways people think of God, and thousands of flavors of Christianity, Judaism, Islam...but they’re always looking at something that’s not measurable or you can’t really see or control. This time it’s different. This time you will be able to talk to God, literally, and know that it’s listening.â€
<sardonic quip about the invisible and the nonexistent looking very similar>
QuoteI ask if he worries that believers from more traditional faiths might find his project blasphemous.
Understatement of the year.
QuoteLevandowski thinks that any attempts to delay or restrict an emerging super-intelligence would not only be doomed to failure, but also add to the risks. “Chaining it isn’t going to be the solution, as it will be stronger than any chains you could put on,†he says. “And if you’re worried a kid might be a little crazy and do bad things, you don’t lock them up. You expose them to playing with others, encourage them and try to fix it.
Terrible metaphor. Trying to ensure that strong AI doesn't harm humanity either intentionally or inadvertently is not equivalent to chaining up your kid. It's more like talking to your kid about safety and ethics before sending him/her to the playground. It's way better than letting the little maniac loose without any sort of guidance, which is apparently what this "church" is advocating for.
QuoteWOTF will eventually have a gospel (called The Manual), a liturgy, and probably a physical place of worship. None of these has yet been developed.
Let's keep it that way.
QuoteWhenever that does (or doesn’t) happen, the federal government has no problem with an organization aiming to build and worship a divine AI. Correspondence with the IRS show that it granted Levandowski’s church tax-exempt status in August.
Not surprising. When Scientology can meet the requirements, you know they're not very stringent.
Quote from: SGOS on November 18, 2017, 09:31:31 PMIt's just a bunch of computer programs that spin little gears and turn things on and off.
Well, the human body can be similarly summed up as a series of ion pumps, electrical impulses, and other similar biological processes. It's not so much the building blocks that's impressive, it's how they're arranged and interact.
Currently, even the most complex computer is way behind, but bridging the gap isn't impossible (to say otherwise usually means subscribing to some sort of mind-body dualism or asserting that living matter is fundamentally different from non-living matter, neither of which I consider to be very convincing arguments)
QuoteWhen the war finally breaks out between humans and AI, all we have to do is bomb a few power plants, yank their electrical cords out of the wall sockets and fry their circuits with an EM blast, and then they will know who's in charge and we can go back to using landlines and pocket calculators and paying the neighbor's kid to mow the lawn.
I've heard that story before. The Butlerian Jihad. The Age of Strife. The Human-Cylon War. The Second Renaissance (The Matrix).
In these scenarios, even when humanity prevails, it's in a stunted form - perpetually fearful of too advanced technology, often requiring humans to be enhanced in some way to fill vital roles that cannot be handed off to computers. And it goes without saying that in these scenarios, humanity rarely prevails.
Let's hope it never comes to a physical confrontation in real life, because that would almost certainly have a horrible outcome for humanity.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 18, 2017, 10:52:19 PM
Let's hope it never comes to a physical confrontation in real life, because that would almost certainly have a horrible outcome for humanity.
It seems to me that this basically comes down to humanity declaring war on itself. There are two factions at war, but only one side actually playing the game.
Quote
Currently, even the most complex computer is way behind.
I keep thinking about my first person shooters. The first few times through a scenario, you get your ass shot to pieces. But eventually, you know that when you get close to that tree a guy is going to pop out, and after that, some guy will start shooting at you from behind. The enemy always does the same thing so you play as if you have some psychic ability to forecast events. And even in games where the enemy is programmed to not always use the same tactics, its differing strategies are still limited to a few.
Challenging yes, but not really all that intelligent, but they call this AI. It's not really artificial intelligence even in it's most sophisticated current form. Having said that computers can number crunch faster than any human idiot savant, but it's still not intelligence.
Try it this way; Artificial intelligence ≠intelligence. Just because they refer to each with the same word doesn't create equality.
We can have this conversation again 200 years from now. Perhaps with different outcomes.
The word "Artificial Intelligence" has always been susceptible to hype. A better title would be "Advanced Computer Programming". It went into decline in the 90s when Expert Systems didn't live up to the promise and the Japanese were convinced by hype to spend a half billion dollars on the Fifth Generation project which fizzled. Now the hype is bigger and more grandiose than it has ever been in the past. Even Stephen Hawking has been mentioning it in an alarmist way perhaps to get publicity. It seems the most promising recent development is "deep learning" which is really more accurately described as advanced statistical programming.
Quote from: SGOS on November 18, 2017, 09:31:31 PM
Good Grief! I will admit that artificially intelligent beings deserve an artificially intelligent god to worship, but don't expect me to worship their overlord. I think this whole artificial intelligence thing is blown way out of proportion anyway. It's just a bunch of computer programs that spin little gears and turn things on and off. Some geek gave it an acronym, and the rest of the lemmings jumped on the band wagon and started thinking it was more than it is. When the war finally breaks out between humans and AI, all we have to do is bomb a few power plants, yank their electrical cords out of the wall sockets and fry their circuits with an EM blast, and then they will know who's in charge and we can go back to using landlines and pocket calculators and paying the neighbor's kid to mow the lawn.
This is the US. Think of the tax avoidance ... same as Church of Holy Reefer. And yes, smells of Scientology and Reaiians.
Quote
With the internet as its nervous system, the world’s connected cell phones and sensors as its sense organs, and data centers as its brain, the ‘whatever’ will hear everything, see everything, and be everywhere at all times.
"Even assuming that's true, there's still a lot of stuff going on in the world that never makes it on the internet and never gets recorded by sensors."
Repeat of sentient phone network by Ray Bradbury ... back when it was just transistors and relays.
Quote from: SGOS on November 19, 2017, 12:49:48 AMI keep thinking about my first person shooters. The first few times through a scenario, you get your ass shot to pieces. But eventually, you know that when you get close to that tree a guy is going to pop out, and after that, some guy will start shooting at you from behind. The enemy always does the same thing so you play as if you have some psychic ability to forecast events. And even in games where the enemy is programmed to not always use the same tactics, its differing strategies are still limited to a few.
Challenging yes, but not really all that intelligent, but they call this AI.
Video game AI is really just an
intentionally simplistic decision tree. If player takes dialogue option #2, generate dialogue #2 then attack player. If HP < 30%, use a healing potion. It superficially resembles intelligence, but it's not really intelligence in the way most people mean it. Extra Credits (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FBGR6vmNeU) goes into this in more detail.
Primitive video game AI (weak AI) =/= artificial general intelligence (strong AI)
QuoteTry it this way; Artificial intelligence ≠intelligence. Just because they refer to each with the same word doesn't create equality.
Obviously, human intelligence and machine intelligence is not currently on anywhere even close to an equal footing, but that doesn't mean that artificial intelligence is a fictional concept.
AIs can currently beat the best human players in the world at Go, Chess, and Jeopardy. They can perform surgery, pick stocks, understand human speech, drive cars, create music, etc. And they're improving.
True, there is not yet a general-purpose strong AI. But to say that there is currently no intelligence at all is simply untrue.
QuoteWe can have this conversation again 200 years from now. Perhaps with different outcomes.
Perhaps. But in such a scenario, this would no longer be an issue and the position that artificial intelligence is just a meaningless buzzword would be laughable.
Related: AI Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect) (a method of discounting AI by declaring that whatever tasks an AI can perform do not require "real thinking" when they previously did when it was a purely human activity)
AI beings would have to worship humans... their creators.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 19, 2017, 12:52:42 PM
Related: AI Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect) (a method of discounting AI by declaring that whatever tasks an AI can perform do not require "real thinking" when they previously did when it was a purely human activity)
I understand the debate between AI fans and the discounters, and I even admit I felt a bit guilty being a discounter, because discounting naysayers are always so stuffy being so uppity and all, but so be it. Count me as one of the discounters. I may change my position, but that's along way off. I see the debate founded on philosophical and semantic issues, which I think makes for a good debate, but also leads to both sides talking past each other. I don't hold philosophy and semantics in high regard.
This does not mean I don't appreciate AI. What they have accomplished so far with it is impressive and valuable. My issue is with the semantics. Define AI as intelligence and the fans automatically win. I can't bring myself to do that. What computers do and what humans do are different processes given the same name. Not to say the flawed intelligence of humans is better. I would never suggest that.
Back in the 50s a friend of mine built a tic tac toe machine for the science fair that would always beat you or tie you, but as impressive as that was, even then I could understand the algorithm that it used and could somewhat imagine the circuitry involved. It wasn't a scientific mystery. Computers do it way better, but it still happens because some geek devised an algorithm and had an understanding of what he was doing and what makes it happen (I think). There are indeed some serendipitous and accidental outcomes in programming in the category of bugs that turn out to be useful, but when the coding is studied, they can be understood.
Human intelligence, even dog, cat, and dolphin intelligence is a bit different than AI in that no one understands it. Neruo scientists can trace brain pathways and locate thoughts in a persons head, but how those neural pathways end up being perceived as a thought or a memory of a visual experience, no one knows how the end product is derived from the scramble of electro chemical reactions. And those that claim they know (usually theists) may have an answer, but so far are unable to support that answer with anything more than an assertion.
OK we may understand it some day, just as someday an AI will do the same thing. But the jury is still out. What we are debating here is a thing neither side understands, and lack of understanding doesn't make for good points in a debate. To me the debate can only be decided when everyone agrees that human intelligence is the same thing as AI by definition, but as of now we have no way of knowing if that will ever happen or ever be understood. That's why I see this a semantic issue, and why I won't concede to an arbitrary definition.
One more thing in regards to the link: It claims that humans want to hold themselves apart from AI to reserve a special place for themselves, and I think many will do that. I don't. I don't hold human intelligence as anything more than an evolutionary artifact fraught with something like programming bugs, actual artifacts that make human intelligence so far from perfect that we ought to be ashamed of our species, its power to reason, and the pervading ignorance associated with it. There is nothing special in that that deserves to be held on a higher level.
Is AI the same has human intelligence then? Maybe, but no one really knows. Until someone actually does, it's like holding a formal debate in an hurricane of confusion.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 19, 2017, 11:08:21 AM
Obviously, human intelligence and machine intelligence is not currently on anywhere even close to an equal footing, but that doesn't mean that artificial intelligence is a fictional concept.
I hope I didn't say I thought AI is a fictional concept. It's a very real concept. It's is artificial intelligence, and it exists in reality, not just as a concept. But I don't think that's the debate. Do you?
Quote from: SGOS on November 19, 2017, 03:34:47 PM
I hope I didn't say I thought AI is a fictional concept. It's a very real concept. It's is artificial intelligence, and it exists in reality, not just as a concept. But I don't think that's the debate. Do you?
I'm not sure. Sometimes we seem to be in complete agreement and sometimes not, yet my position has not changed. Then what has changed? :headscratch:
My position is that our current AI technology is still in its infancy and current AIs are not general-purpose (narrow AI) and are well below the human level. But assuming any rate of improvement, AIs are likely to reach human-level intelligence in the future.
In your post, you describe AI behavior in a video game - basically, a NPC running a predefined script with no variation ("enemy always does the same thing") and conclude that the "intelligence" in artificial intelligence is a misnomer, that it's really just number crunching, not intelligence. Therefore, AIs cannot match human intelligence because AIs do not really possess intelligence.
I'm trying to sum up your position as best I can. I'm practically quoting you verbatim in places. So if I completely misread you, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from and I only have your posts and an imperfect reading of what you're saying to work with.
So if you'll sum up your position in a few sentences, that'd help me understand tremendously.
Quote from: SGOS on November 19, 2017, 03:27:36 PMOK we may understand it some day, just as someday an AI will do the same thing. But the jury is still out. What we are debating here is a thing neither side understands, and lack of understanding doesn't make for good points in a debate. To me the debate can only be decided when everyone agrees that human intelligence is the same thing as AI by definition, but as of now we have no way of knowing if that will ever happen or ever be understood. That's why I see this a semantic issue, and why I won't concede to an arbitrary definition.
I don't understand this demand. To me, it's fairly obvious that human and machine intelligence is different in much the same way that human and various non-human animals are different. We're not wired the same way. We don't have the same capabilities. But two things don't have to be identical to be comparable.
If a particularly smart elephant gets into Harvard, gets a degree in criminal justice, passes the bar exam, and gets a job as an attorney, I'm liable to consider the elephant to have a human-level intellect despite its brain not being the same as a human brain.
Machines are starting to do a lot of intellectual tasks that were previously solely the domain of humans. Rendering a medical diagnosis, for example. It's on this basis that I say they're progressing towards human-level intelligence.
Part of the reason that AI accomplishments tend to be discounted as real intelligence (the AI effect) is because the AI doesn't accomplish the given task in any way resembling the way a human would accomplish the same task. Deep Blue didn't beat Kasparov the way a human did. Deep Blue didn't calculate in terms of strategies and goals and looking a hundred moves ahead in a likely cone of responses like a human player would. Deep Blue looked typically somewhere around ten moves ahead, achieving twenty moves ahead in some cases. It never "thought" about the endgame except when it encountered it on its normal brute force search. It also thought in terms of scoring based on the value of pieces in particular positions. This is a completely foreign way of thinking for chess players in general. A chess game played by humans is as much White's creation as it is Black's, and this is not what happens in a match against Deep Blue â€" the computer's move is very much a mere response to the human's, however sophisticated that response may be.
The term "artificial intelligence" conjures up images of a robot speaking and moving in a manner indistinguishable from a human. We would be making a human intelligence, just by artificial means, and in a way, I tend to think that AI is part of the search for what makes humans intelligent, and this does not seem to be what AI research is producing. This is, on the whole, what puts people off calling AI "intelligent."
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 19, 2017, 07:55:21 PM
I'm not sure. Sometimes we seem to be in complete agreement and sometimes not, yet my position has not changed. Then what has changed? :headscratch:
My position is that our current AI technology is still in its infancy and current AIs are not general-purpose (narrow AI) and are well below the human level. But assuming any rate of improvement, AIs are likely to reach human-level intelligence in the future.
In your post, you describe AI behavior in a video game - basically, a NPC running a predefined script with no variation ("enemy always does the same thing") and conclude that the "intelligence" in artificial intelligence is a misnomer, that it's really just number crunching, not intelligence. Therefore, AIs cannot match human intelligence because AIs do not really possess intelligence.
I'm trying to sum up your position as best I can. I'm practically quoting you verbatim in places. So if I completely misread you, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from and I only have your posts and an imperfect reading of what you're saying to work with.
So if you'll sum up your position in a few sentences, that'd help me understand tremendously.
I don't think anything has changed, and in reading back through the posts, I get the feeling we were defending two more or less unrelated ideas. An extreme analogy would be you insisting that you prefer Budweiser, while I was adamant that there is more than one variety of sea lion.
It may have started when I got to talking about game AI, when I knew you were talking about advanced AI, and I actually hoped you wouldn't think I was equating the two. But I started on it and just finished the thought.
Then I got on to my semantic issue. I'm really not sure why. I guess I just felt I wanted to say it, even though in reading back through, I can't find any comment you made that actually required that response.
I was also occasionally vaguely aware of the feeling that I wasn't sure what we were talking about anymore. But I became lost in a sea of verbiage until I turned to ride off singing into a brilliant sunset as the credits started to roll and everyone was leaving the theater. Then the lights came on and the attendants started sweeping up the popcorn.
I hesitate to rephrase my position, because I no longer think it's relevant to yours. But in complying to your request:
My position is that I believe that human intelligence is a different process than artificial intelligence. If they are the same (I don't mean of equally superior or inferior quality), then human intelligence must also be artificial, because they are both the same.
I'm talking about the processes that result in these outcomes that we call intelligence. Both can produce intelligent outcomes, but are achieved using different pathways. That's what I mean by intelligence. It's a complex pathway that solves a problem.
And that's about it.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 19, 2017, 08:42:20 PM
Part of the reason that AI accomplishments tend to be discounted as real intelligence (the AI effect) is because the AI doesn't accomplish the given task in any way resembling the way a human would accomplish the same task.
Yes, yes, thank you. I'll just let you finish up explaining myself. As long as you don's say that I discount AI.
Quote from: SGOS on November 19, 2017, 08:54:20 PMI'm talking about the processes that result in these outcomes that we call intelligence. Both can produce intelligent outcomes, but are achieved using different pathways. That's what I mean by intelligence. It's a complex pathway that solves a problem.
Okay. I'm looking at this more from a results perspective. I'm more concerned about whether or not an AI can perform complex intellectual tasks than how it goes about doing it or what sort of processes are going on. So, we were probably talking past each other back there.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 19, 2017, 09:10:28 PM
Okay. I'm looking at this more from a results perspective. I'm more concerned about whether or not an AI can perform complex intellectual tasks than how it goes about doing it or what sort of processes are going on. So, we were probably talking past each other back there.
Yeah, I get it now.
Y'all are talking about "strong" AI and "weak" AI. With "weak" AI, it doesn't matter how the result is produced, as long as it is. With "strong" AI, it does matter how the result is produced, it has to be produced in the same way a human does it. With all degrees of gray in between. That is the exact breaking point between the "expert system" AI and the "neural net" AI. Both are machine learning, the question is, how much "human" knowledge do you have to put into it to begin with.
FWIW
It's kind of interesting, and played a central role in the movie Deus Ex Machina. This is only posted as something of interest, not a position or opinion. But it does address the thinking "Process" in humans and AI.
The Turing Test does not test for correct answers or replies given by the AI. That was not what Turing wanted to determine. He was only testing whether the AI responses could not be differentiated from human responses. This may suggest that AI and humans use a similar process if they can pass the Turing Test.
With that, I'll go off on another tangent. Why would you want to build a computer that thought like humans? The point of computers is to not think like humans, but to capitalize on their special designs to solve specific problems with much greater speed and accuracy than humans ever could.
Granted it would be fun to design an android like machine, just for the challenge alone, but computers currently have much more value as computers than they do of human simulators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test
QuoteThe Turing test, developed by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. Turing proposed that a human evaluator would judge natural language conversations between a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The evaluator would be aware that one of the two partners in conversation is a machine, and all participants would be separated from one another. The conversation would be limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen so the result would not depend on the machine's ability to render words as speech.[2] If the evaluator cannot reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine is said to have passed the test. The test does not check the ability to give correct answers to questions, only how closely answers resemble those a human would give.
The test was introduced by Turing in his paper, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", while working at the University of Manchester (Turing, 1950; p. 460).[3] It opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words."[4] Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?"[5] This question, Turing believed, is one that can actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against all the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think".[6]
Since Turing first introduced his test, it has proven to be both highly influential and widely criticised, and it has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence.[7][8]
QuotePhilosophical background[edit]
The question of whether it is possible for machines to think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the mind. René Descartes prefigures aspects of the Turing Test in his 1637 Discourse on the Method when he writes:
[H]ow many different automata or moving machines can be made by the industry of man [...] For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if touched in a particular part it may ask what we wish to say to it; if in another part it may exclaim that it is being hurt, and so on. But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do.[9]
Here Descartes notes that automata are capable of responding to human interactions but argues that such automata cannot respond appropriately to things said in their presence in the way that any human can. Descartes therefore prefigures the Turing Test by defining the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton. Descartes fails to consider the possibility that future automata might be able to overcome such insufficiency, and so does not propose the Turing Test as such, even if he prefigures its conceptual framework and criterion.
Denis Diderot formulates in his Pensées philosophiques a Turing-test criterion:
"If they find a parrot who could answer to everything, I would claim it to be an intelligent being without hesitation."[10]
This does not mean he agrees with this, but that it was already a common argument of materialists at that time.
According to dualism, the mind is non-physical (or, at the very least, has non-physical properties)[11] and, therefore, cannot be explained in purely physical terms. According to materialism, the mind can be explained physically, which leaves open the possibility of minds that are produced artificially.[12]
In 1936, philosopher Alfred Ayer considered the standard philosophical question of other minds: how do we know that other people have the same conscious experiences that we do? In his book, Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer suggested a protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for asserting that an object which appears to be conscious is not really a conscious being, but only a dummy or a machine, is that it fails to satisfy one of the empirical tests by which the presence or absence of consciousness is determined."[13] (This suggestion is very similar to the Turing test, but is concerned with consciousness rather than intelligence. Moreover, it is not certain that Ayer's popular philosophical classic was familiar to Turing.) In other words, a thing is not conscious if it fails the consciousness test.
Alan Turing[edit]
A machine able to imitate a human well enough to pass as one doesn't mean that the machine thinks like a human. Being able to imitate a human necessitates that the machine be able to form some kind of theory of mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) about humans. The machine may think in a completely different way from a human, but because it has an understanding of how human minds work, it can extrapolate how a human would react to a given input. Computer programmers do the exact same thing to computers all the time; because they have an understanding of how computers work, they can extrapolate how a computer (and its software) will respond to a given input. A computer that is able to pass a full Turing test has demonstrated the ability to learn how a human thinks, even though the mechanism of its thought is completely different from that of a human, and as such, has demonstrated some capacity for intelligence.
Quote from: SGOS on November 20, 2017, 09:16:37 AMThe Turing Test does not test for correct answers or replies given by the AI. That was not what Turing wanted to determine. He was only testing whether the AI responses could not be differentiated from human responses. This may suggest that AI and humans use a similar process if they can pass the Turing Test.
Speaking of the Turing Test, one thing that bugs me about chatbots is that it's so easy to tell they're a machine because they don't really keep track of the conversation.
Me: I'm going to order pizza. What kind do you like?
Bot: Yum save some for me.
Me: I love anchovies. Do you like anchovies?
Bot: What do they taste like?
Me: They taste great.
Bot: Do you like tacos?
Me: No.
Bot: Why? I love them!
Me: I hate tacos, I like pizza more.
Bot: Me too.
The bot has no consistency, no permanence. It makes for a very unconvincing performance.
QuoteWith that, I'll go off on another tangent. Why would you want to build a computer that thought like humans? The point of computers is to not think like humans, but to capitalize on their special designs to solve specific problems with much greater speed and accuracy than humans ever could.
I'm planning on making a separate thread about this - on if how much like us we'd really want a strong AI to be. For example, we like Data from TNG precisely because he incorporates our better qualities without incorporating our vices. Meanwhile, the much more human-like Lore is a villain.
So hold on to your horses for now, I'll make a thread about this topic shortly.
The original chatbot was Eliza. It is still available, as an app on the Internet. It tested how gullible people are ... that is all the Turing test can do. Tell me how you determine what "theory of mind" a self modifying computer program has? And yes, people are gullible, that is how marketing, politics and fraud work.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 20, 2017, 11:31:15 AM
A machine able to imitate a human well enough to pass as one doesn't mean that the machine thinks like a human. Being able to imitate a human necessitates that the machine be able to form some kind of theory of mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) about humans. The machine may think in a completely different way from a human, but because it has an understanding of how human minds work, it can extrapolate how a human would react to a given input. Computer programmers do the exact same thing to computers all the time; because they have an understanding of how computers work, they can extrapolate how a computer (and its software) will respond to a given input. A computer that is able to pass a full Turing test has demonstrated the ability to learn how a human thinks, even though the mechanism of its thought is completely different from that of a human, and as such, has demonstrated some capacity for intelligence.
This is called cognitive psychology. It is the current paradigm in American psychology. Back in Turing's day, it was Behaviorism. Behaviorism assumed that people don't think, they are unthinking stimulus/response systems. Which is exactly what marketing assumes. Simulations, used to test out cognitive psychology theories, are legit. But that is research, it isn't how to make your gaming experience better.
Look, Baruch, just because you can be replaced with ELIZA doesn't mean we all can. On the other hand, while behaviorism doesn't explain everything we do, we are built on top of a stimulus/response chassis. This is why marketing works sometimes.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 21, 2017, 06:06:35 PM
Look, Baruch, just because you can be replaced with ELIZA doesn't mean we all can. On the other hand, while behaviorism doesn't explain everything we do, we are built on top of a stimulus/response chassis. This is why marketing works sometimes.
Was that your reptilian mid-brain speaking? Hiss.
I tested the on-line version of Eliza. I figured out how to spoof it (as I can spoof Google Translate) and now others spoofed Tay. Eliza decided what I had to say ... was interesting. She has clearly reached the AI Singularity.
With a little help from my telencephalon. In a way, those morons who think that the governments of the world are secretly run by reptiles are right. Only, they are right only in the sense that we are all reptiloforms â€" we never stopped being a bit reptile.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 21, 2017, 06:15:33 PM
With a little help from my telencephalon. In a way, those morons who think that the governments of the world are secretly run by reptiles are right. Only, they are right only in the sense that we are all reptiloforms â€" we never stopped being a bit reptile.
What pissed me off ... Democrats claiming to be therapsids, and insisting that Republicans are amphibians ;-) Tadpoles, all the way down.
A scammer like L Ron Hubbard.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 19, 2017, 08:42:20 PM
Part of the reason that AI accomplishments tend to be discounted as real intelligence (the AI effect) is because the AI doesn't accomplish the given task in any way resembling the way a human would accomplish the same task. Deep Blue didn't beat Kasparov the way a human did. Deep Blue didn't calculate in terms of strategies and goals and looking a hundred moves ahead in a likely cone of responses like a human player would. Deep Blue looked typically somewhere around ten moves ahead, achieving twenty moves ahead in some cases. It never "thought" about the endgame except when it encountered it on its normal brute force search. It also thought in terms of scoring based on the value of pieces in particular positions. This is a completely foreign way of thinking for chess players in general. A chess game played by humans is as much White's creation as it is Black's, and this is not what happens in a match against Deep Blue â€" the computer's move is very much a mere response to the human's, however sophisticated that response may be.
The term "artificial intelligence" conjures up images of a robot speaking and moving in a manner indistinguishable from a human. We would be making a human intelligence, just by artificial means, and in a way, I tend to think that AI is part of the search for what makes humans intelligent, and this does not seem to be what AI research is producing. This is, on the whole, what puts people off calling AI "intelligent."
I i no way mean to diminish your post, but only to give an example of human thought.
When I was President of the University of Maryland Chess Club, we had this weird guy who would come in occasionally. He would smoke a joint and be unbeatable. He said he "saw all the pieces moving many moves ahead". And in a quarter of the board (where he focussed) he could get around him.
Then we realized we could drive him to distraction by merely moving a pawn on the other side. He would totally lose it then, LOL!
But he was utter death wherever he could focus.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 08:50:58 AM
I i no way mean to diminish your post, but only to give an example of human thought.
When I was President of the University of Maryland Chess Club, we had this weird guy who would come in occasionally. He would smoke a joint and be unbeatable. He said he "saw all the pieces moving many moves ahead". And in a quarter of the board (where he focussed) he could get around him.
Then we realized we could drive him to distraction by merely moving a pawn on the other side. He would totally lose it then, LOL!
But he was utter death wherever he could focus.
I maybe the world's worst chess player, so what do I know. I knew what moves each piece were allowed to do, and I had read somewhere that the strategy was to think ahead, and plan your attack, which I tried to do. A friend and I, both utter novices, would play and I think he would always beat me. This was long ago. I don't remember ever winning a game. I may have, but I don't remember ever winning against anyone. I would think ahead maybe 8 moves and imagine sacrificing a pawn to nail my opponents knight or bishop, only to have him make a move I didn't anticipate, which of course destroyed my plan. Considering there are an infinite number of moves an opponent can make, it seemed impossible that planning ahead could accomplish anything at all, so I eventually lost interest in the game.
But the game still holds what seems to me an unsolvable mystery, a mystery beyond my comprehension, so I tend to hold the game in high regard. I used to regularly go to the local YMCA to play basketball, but we would also swim in the pool, and occasionally play volleyball with serious players. I enjoyed setting up the ball for my teammates. Volleyball can actually be an engrossing delightful game when taken seriously. But I digress. In the lobby of the YMCA, there was a chess table, and you could check out the chess pieces at the main desk, and engage almost anyone hanging out in the lobby. I never played, but occasionally others would.
One day, a bunch of us went to the Y, and one of my friends brought a guest, a guy I didn't know who challenged someone in our group to a game of chess, and they began to play, and this new guy would make short work of whoever he played in our group, and soon he attracted a group of onlookers from the crowd in the lobby, and eventually a stranger in the mob politely asked him if he could play him. The stranger was wearing a military uniform. I think he was a marine, but he was unshaven and disheveled, like a bum. He was probably ex-military and was 30 years older than the rest of us. The new guy accepted the challenge and the marine sat down across of him, and politely, almost humbly, asked, "Would you be offended if I spotted you one of my pieces?" The new guy in our group thoughtfully considered, and replied, "No, go ahead and spot me a piece," and the marine immediately removed his queen from the board. The onlookers all got hushed as I recall. At least I was hushed. I think that marine beat the new guy in less than 10 moves, but it was long ago. Our group left the lobby to go play basketball.
On the way out, the marine was playing someone else, but no pieces were spotted, and instead of making quick moves that he made before, each was engaged in serious deliberation. It seemed like a meeting of the minds on a level beyond anything I could understand. I don't know how long they kept it up. Our group left and went home for dinner.
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 10:35:48 AM
I maybe the world's worst chess player, so what do I know. I knew what moves each piece were allowed to do, and I had read somewhere that the strategy was to think ahead, and plan your attack, which I tried to do. A friend and I, both utter novices, would play and I think he would always beat me. This was long ago. I don't remember ever winning a game. I may have, but I don't remember ever winning against anyone. I would think ahead maybe 8 moves and imagine sacrificing a pawn to nail my opponents knight or bishop, only to have him make a move I didn't anticipate, which of course destroyed my plan. Considering there are an infinite number of moves an opponent can make, it seemed impossible that planning ahead could accomplish anything at all, so I eventually lost interest in the game.
But the game still holds what seems to me an unsolvable mystery, a mystery beyond my comprehension, so I tend to hold the game in high regard. I used to regularly go to the local YMCA to play basketball, but we would also swim in the pool, and occasionally play volleyball with serious players. I enjoyed setting up the ball for my teammates. Volleyball can actually be an engrossing delightful game when taken seriously. But I digress. In the lobby of the YMCA, there was a chess table, and you could check out the chess pieces at the main desk, and engage almost anyone hanging out in the lobby. I never played, but occasionally others would.
One day, a bunch of us went to the Y, and one of my friends brought a guest, a guy I didn't know who challenged someone in our group to a game of chess, and they began to play, and this new guy would make short work of whoever he played in our group, and soon he attracted a group of onlookers from the crowd in the lobby, and eventually a stranger in the mob politely asked him if he could play him. The stranger was wearing a military uniform. I think he was a marine, but he was unshaven and disheveled, like a bum. He was probably ex-military and was 30 years older than the rest of us. The new guy accepted the challenge and the marine sat down across of him, and politely, almost humbly, asked, "Would you be offended if I spotted you one of my pieces?" The new guy in our group thoughtfully considered, and replied, "No, go ahead and spot me a piece," and the marine immediately removed his queen from the board. The onlookers all got hushed as I recall. At least I was hushed. I think that marine beat the new guy in less than 10 moves, but it was long ago. Our group left the lobby to go play basketball.
On the way out, the marine was playing someone else, but no pieces were spotted, and instead of making quick moves that he made before, each was engaged in serious deliberation. It seemed like a meeting of the minds on a level beyond anything I could understand. I don't know how long they kept it up. Our group left and went home for dinner.
Spotting a Queen is a bit arrogant, but if you can back it up...
I remember a 12 year old chess genius visiting our club once. He didn't spot pieces, but he played weird defenses as Black until the White opponent had little left. And 3 moves and you were dead.
BTW, "President Of The Chess Club" meant I could get boards on tables and manage tournies. In spite of years of play and study, I'm barely in the top 50% of rated players. I do have one trophy though.
I can't even beat the computer these days. Brilliant combinations are the first thing to go as you age.
My favorite chess quote is from a Russian Grandmaster who almost but never quite became the World Champ: "Sometimes I forget my opponents have good ideas too". I hope it was Tal, because I can't spell any of the others. LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 12:05:57 PM
Spotting a Queen is a bit arrogant, but if you can back it up...
I remember a 12 year old chess genius visiting our club once. He didn't spot pieces, but he played weird defenses as Black until the White opponent had little left. And 3 moves and you were dead.
BTW, "President Of The Chess Club" meant I could get boards on tables and manage tournies. In spite of years of play and study, I'm barely in the top 50% of rated players. I do have one trophy though.
I can't even beat the computer these days. Brilliant combinations are the first thing to go as you age.
My favorite chess quote is from a Russian Grandmaster who almost but never quite became the World Champ: "Sometimes I forget my opponents have good ideas too". I hope it was Tal, because I can't spell any of the others. LOL!
Ha! I remember that new guy in our group thoughtfully deliberating each of his moves, while that marine would respond each time in what almost seemed like immediate thoughtless responses. I remember that mob of interested onlookers hovering around the table like wolves waiting for the kill. Right away, the lobby knew something big was going to happen. I don't have a clue what was going on in the player's minds. That game is a mystery to me.
Edit: One of my favorite films is Searching for Bobby Fischer. It bombed at the box office, I think, but is now a classic.
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 12:20:48 PM
Ha! I remember that new guy in our group thoughtfully deliberating each of his moves, while that marine would respond each time in what almost seemed like immediate thoughtless responses. I remember that mob of interested onlookers hovering around the table like wolves waiting for the kill. Right away, the lobby knew something big was going to happen. I don't have a clue what was going on in the player's minds. That game is a mystery to me.
Edit: One of my favorite films is Waiting for Bobby Fischer. It bombed at the box office, I think, but is now a classic.
An experienced player (like your marine) has seen so many moves that few can surprise him. Ans especially if they play White and know a lot of opening moves. But there is also a something to be said for native talent.
Mon taught me the game. I suppose it was obvious I was beyond Candyland and Sorry. When she couldn't beat me, she turned me over to Dad who was very good at almost any game. When I was 12, I quit playing because he couldn't win. I found another chess-player my age and we went at it relentlessly.
I learned in College that I didn't have the talent to advance further. knew ll the openings, but lacked the imagination. I remember reading of Bobby Fischer being told suddenly by his teacher to move a knight on every square one but never twice, and he just DID it.
I can't do that even now. Sort of like solving a Rubic's Cube. You "get it" or you don't.
I always imagined that my utterly stupid moves on the chess table might confuse a good player. In reality, he would more likely conclude that he was playing a moron early in the process and just adopt some new strategy based on ignoring me as if he were playing a half empty chess board with no opponent in his way.
Quote from: SGOS on December 18, 2017, 12:50:36 PM
I always imagined that my utterly stupid moves on the chess table might confuse a good player. In reality, he would more likely conclude that he was playing a moron early in the process and just adopt some new strategy based on ignoring me as if he were playing a half empty chess board with no opponent in his way.
A chess-player's response to weird or confusing moves is the construct a solid defense or develop an attack on weak spots. Bad moves don't confuse
But for a skilled player, they merely give opportunity.
But don't ignore arrogance of a better player. The very week after I won the MD Open tourney (in my rating group), I fell for a Fool's Mate in the DC Open and left the tourney in disgrace! Sad but true.
I see what you two did here ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 02:11:02 PM
"Discuss chess"?
Interesting place to discuss. Like guys hiding in the janitor's closet at HS to smoke reefers.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 07:30:29 PM
Interesting place to discuss. Like guys hiding in the janitor's closet at HS to smoke reefers.
My HS years were 'just" before reefers. My sophomore college year I was asking "Am I high Yet?" Man, if you have to ask you aren't?
Best experience, walking out of a dorm room after "indulging" and leaning against the door frame. Which was 2' away. In MY mind, I spent an hour sinking slowly into a verdant forest listening to 'Stairway To Heaven'.
From their POV, I just fell to the floor... One never knows, do one?
There's an annual contest to to see which programs are the most like a human, called the Loebner Prize (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize). There's even a prize for the most human human:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIW8KphZo0
I expect the most human human reply was like "hey dude, s'up. Pizza?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 05, 2018, 07:15:37 PM
There's an annual contest to to see which programs are the most like a human, called the Loebner Prize (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize). There's even a prize for the most human human:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIW8KphZo0
Programs are written by programmers ... and they aren't very human ... usually autistic males.
Are you saying that people plagued by autism are sub-human!?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 08, 2018, 01:44:52 PM
Are you saying that people plagued by autism are sub-human!?
If I meant that, I would say "untermenschen".
No, they are geeks, and no girl in her right mind would date one of those.
Yes, put a psychopath in charge of your country ... otherwise you bigoted against psychopaths.
Quote from: Baruch on March 08, 2018, 01:47:47 PM
If I meant that, I would say "untermenschen".
No, they are geeks, and no girl in her right mind would date one of those.
Geeks need love too, you know. I read a book last year called
Geek Love (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Love) - but those were a different kind of geeks.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 08, 2018, 01:44:52 PM
Are you saying that people plagued by autism are sub-human!?
He probably is.
Here's a thought. What if you competed as the human human part of the test and LOST"
LOL!
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 08, 2018, 01:54:11 PM
Geeks need love too, you know. I read a book last year called Geek Love (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek_Love) - but those were a different kind of geeks.
There is a scene from Thesmophoriazusae ... by Euripides, where Communism is first proposed. The single old ladies get first dibs on the single young men ... bwahah. Yes, lets equalize, by frontal lobotomies of smart people, to make life more fair for the idiots.
I think that was in a Heinlein book, maybe Stranger in a Strange Land?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 09, 2018, 01:47:18 PM
I think that was in a Heinlein book, maybe Stranger in a Strange Land?
Proof you are a Red, but because of being Martian ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 09, 2018, 06:00:52 PM
Proof you are a Red, but because of being Martian ;-)
The Martians were utter survivalist capitalists. The young thrived or died. And most did.