3 ms·

"Strong AI" isn't really a meaningful term anymore, because we keep moving the goalposts: ) "A computer will be intelligent when it can beat a human at chess.

by dstorrs 16y ago

"Strong AI" isn't really a meaningful term anymore, because we keep moving the goalposts: ) "A computer will be intelligent when it can beat a human at chess. Oh, Deep Blue did that? Umm, ok, then...." ) "A computer will be intelligent when it can recognize a human face. Oh, every digital camera on the market has basic versions of that built in? Ummm, ok, then...." ) "A computer will be intelligent when it can TRANSLATE between human languages! Hah! Try THAT on for size, you geeky boffins! Wait, what? Google has been doing that for years, and AltaVista did it back in 1995? Oh. Ummmm, well...." ) "A computer will be intelligent when it can pass an unrestricted Turing tes- [someone else whispers to the speaker] What's that? Computers have passed the Turing test? And humans have failed it? Um, right, moving on!" "Strong AI" is the magic incantation that means "a computer that is so smart we don't understand how it works any more"--because, if we DO understand how it works, then it's just another computer program. This says interesting things about why we regard humans as intelligent. If we actually advance neuroscience et al to a sufficient point that we deeply understand the brain and the mind, will we stop thinking of ourselves as self-aware and free-willed?

lukev 16y ago
I disagree. I think people have always had a pretty good idea what they meant by intelligence - the examples you cite are just things that they have pulled out of their hat as examples of something "only" an intelligent entity could do. Turns out they were (partially) wrong about the capabilities of non-intelligent systems, but it doesn't mean that the concept of general intelligence isn't meaningful. Hard to define, yes, but I think most of us would know it when we see it (or interact with it). I'd actually be pretty comfortable defining it by the original discussion - can it meaningfully process a corpus of idiomatic human language, "learn" from it, and respond intelligibly to arbitrary questions on it? This certainly isn't a lower bound on intelligence, by any means, but if it does happen, I don't think there's anyone who won't be convinced. By the way, do you happen to have citations for the computers passing the Turing test? I'd love to see transcripts of that... It is of course possible to pass a Turing test with an Eliza-like program, but it depends largely on the judge and the time allotted.

by dstorrs 16y ago

lukev 16y ago

I disagree. I think people have always had a pretty good idea what they meant by intelligence - the examples you cite are just things that they have pulled out of their hat as examples of something "only" an intelligent entity could do. Turns out they were (partially) wrong about the capabilities of non-intelligent systems, but it doesn't mean that the concept of general intelligence isn't meaningful. Hard to define, yes, but I think most of us would know it when we see it (or interact with it). I'd actually be pretty comfortable defining it by the original discussion - can it meaningfully process a corpus of idiomatic human language, "learn" from it, and respond intelligibly to arbitrary questions on it? This certainly isn't a lower bound on intelligence, by any means, but if it does happen, I don't think there's anyone who won't be convinced. By the way, do you happen to have citations for the computers passing the Turing test? I'd love to see transcripts of that... It is of course possible to pass a Turing test with an Eliza-like program, but it depends largely on the judge and the time allotted.