4 ms·
If your private definition of intelligence excludes everything machines have already been made to do, I suspect it is indeed pointless to discuss machine intell
by inimino 7y ago
If your private definition of intelligence excludes everything machines have already been made to do, I suspect it is indeed pointless to discuss machine intelligence with you.
Personally, I'm not hung up on whether or not submarines can swim. If you are, please give me your clear definition of intelligence and explain how Go and chess and "any other game" are excluded by it.
- reverius42 7y agoSubmarines can certainly swim, but no one is proposing we allow them to decide where they swim to.
- mnm1 7y agoIf submarines are intelligent then cars and bikes must be intelligent also since they operate on similar principles. If a bike is intelligent, then pogo sticks are intelligent too. I suppose at that point, anything can be intelligent. What kind of intelligent things will bikes and cars and pogo sticks and submarines do if all humans ceased to exist? Let me guess: none.
- inimino 7y agoI was referring to the famous quote from Dijkstra: "The Fathers of the field had been pretty confusing: John von Neumann speculated about computers and the human brain in analogies sufficiently wild to be worthy of a medieval thinker and Alan M. Turing thought about criteria to settle the question of whether Machines Can Think, a question of which we now know that it is about as relevant as the question of whether Submarines Can Swim." http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD898.html http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EW... Nobody is suggesting submarines can think. The actual point that Dijkstra was making is that it matters what the machine is capable of, but it doesn't matter what we call the thing that it does. If your private definition of intelligence doesn't allow you to apply it to machines, that's irrelevant.