4 ms·

Sorry, english is not my native language, could you explain "...whether Submarines Can Swim." meaning? Swim as fish (answer - no, because submarines swim using

by deelly 4y ago

Sorry, english is not my native language, could you explain "...whether Submarines Can Swim." meaning? Swim as fish (answer - no, because submarines swim using propellers and analogs), swim as underwater ship (answer - yes, because submarines build to swim)?

Cornelius267 4y ago
I think that you actually understood the point perfectly! I'm a native english speaker, and to me, it looks like he is trying to raise the exact ambiguities that you are asking about. I don't think that his statement is meant to be an answer, rather, I think it's meant to be a statement to jump off of. It's bringing up how definitions matter, and that in different contexts the answer to the same questions could be yes or no.
herodotus 4y ago
Like many words in natural language, "Swim" does not have a precise meaning. A dictionary will probably say something like "Propel through water using limbs", although the word "swimming" can sometimes be used metaphorically, for example "I have bits of bacon swimming in my potato soup". Cleary, bacon does not have limbs! Now even though Submarines (usually) have propellors, one can easily imagine a design that used limb-like oars to propel it. Does this mean that such a strange submarine is swimming? The point Dijkstra was making is that the comparison is pointless: there is a fundamental difference between an organism swimming and a machine moving through water. Trying to equate these two actions is pointless, since it adds no new depth of understanding. He therefore dismisses the question of "can machines think" as having no usefulness.
ryloric 4y ago
You're correct. My intent in quoting was to point out how careless usage of words in AI can fool people, especially the layperson and create wrong expectations. Most can see the difference in the usage of word 'swim' w.r.t fish and submarines, but public knowledge about AI is not at the point where they can make a similar distinction when using 'think' or 'chat' between human and machine. He uses it differently though, he's using that sentence to criticize Alan Turing's early hypothesizing about AI. If you're interested, that document linked has more context.
mhuffman 4y ago
I actually take this different. I take it to mean that machines can "think" in the same way that submarines can "swim" ... which is to say that they both can only do it at the pleasure, command, or creation of a human.

by deelly 4y ago

Cornelius267 4y ago

I think that you actually understood the point perfectly! I'm a native english speaker, and to me, it looks like he is trying to raise the exact ambiguities that you are asking about. I don't think that his statement is meant to be an answer, rather, I think it's meant to be a statement to jump off of. It's bringing up how definitions matter, and that in different contexts the answer to the same questions could be yes or no.

herodotus 4y ago

Like many words in natural language, "Swim" does not have a precise meaning. A dictionary will probably say something like "Propel through water using limbs", although the word "swimming" can sometimes be used metaphorically, for example "I have bits of bacon swimming in my potato soup". Cleary, bacon does not have limbs! Now even though Submarines (usually) have propellors, one can easily imagine a design that used limb-like oars to propel it. Does this mean that such a strange submarine is swimming? The point Dijkstra was making is that the comparison is pointless: there is a fundamental difference between an organism swimming and a machine moving through water. Trying to equate these two actions is pointless, since it adds no new depth of understanding. He therefore dismisses the question of "can machines think" as having no usefulness.

ryloric 4y ago

You're correct. My intent in quoting was to point out how careless usage of words in AI can fool people, especially the layperson and create wrong expectations. Most can see the difference in the usage of word 'swim' w.r.t fish and submarines, but public knowledge about AI is not at the point where they can make a similar distinction when using 'think' or 'chat' between human and machine. He uses it differently though, he's using that sentence to criticize Alan Turing's early hypothesizing about AI. If you're interested, that document linked has more context.

mhuffman 4y ago

I actually take this different. I take it to mean that machines can "think" in the same way that submarines can "swim" ... which is to say that they both can only do it at the pleasure, command, or creation of a human.