3 ms·
I think what this points towards is that we care about the internal mechanism. If we prod it externally and it gives the wrong answer, then the internal mechani
by lordnacho 4y ago
I think what this points towards is that we care about the internal mechanism. If we prod it externally and it gives the wrong answer, then the internal mechanism is definitely wrong. But if we get the right answers and then open it up and find the internals are still wrong, it's still wrong.
This illuminates a contradiction: the walks like a duck thing is incompatible with the internals being a duck. If you see a creature with feathers that waddles and can fly, it might still be a robot when you open it. So your test cannot just rely on external tests. But you also want to create a definition of artificial intelligence that doesn't depend on being made of meat and electricity.
- pegasus 4y agoI think @dvt's comment above is a good attempt at answering this question. I agree with him that intrinsic motivation and a capacity for suffering, hope and all the other emotions (which we share with pretty much all animals, if not plants too) are at the top of the list. Cleverness is there also, but not at the top of the list.
- simonh 4y ago> I think what this points towards is that we care about the internal mechanism. The mechanism is what makes a system interesting. In software this is why we develop libraries of algorithms and code we can reuse and compose into new solutions. The programmer is providing the intellectual flexibility, while the code is the set of capabilities. It’s why this is a superior approach, compared to building a single monolithic mass of procedural code from scratch in a single variable scope for every program we write. Solutions matter because it’s not just about what a system can do now, it’s about what it can learn or be adapted to do next.