3 ms·
In a sense, defining away human intelligence is the whole point. We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied b
by enord 10y ago
In a sense, defining away human intelligence is the whole point. We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied by humans. From the perpective of AI-research any progress will chip away bits from the intelligence black-box and still the resulting AI will be out of reach of "true" intelligence. Since we have little knowledge of the internal structure of "intelligence" as a phenomenon, we can't tell how much is left to discover about it.
From the other end, the merits of production AI will be measured against isolated properties pulled out of the intellgence black-box, and since intelligence remains undefined (in a strict ontological sense), debate ensues.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago>We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied by humans. I believe cognitive scientists have a considerably better idea than that.
- enord 10y agoYes they each have a better idea, but the intersection of their proposals is pretty much just that. Why do you think they still make a big fuss over the Turing Test?
- eli_gottlieb 10y agoI have never heard cognitive scientists make a big fuss over the Turing Test. Who've you been reading/watching?
- enord 10y agoGood old Doug makes a little fuss here: https://books.google.no/books?id=qa85DgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT428&ots=eK521KySS3&dq=donald%20norman%20%20turing%20test&hl=no&pg=PT428#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.no/books?id=qa85DgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT428&ots=... When I said "make a big fuss" i didn't mean "herald it as the gold standard", but they do go on about it even though they might disagree about what it utlimately signifies.