6 ms·

Here is the pointer to the original Eliza paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/365153.365168 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/365153.365168 Note that Weizenbaum

by jll29 3y ago

Here is the pointer to the original Eliza paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/365153.365168 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/365153.365168 Note that Weizenbaum was an AI critic: Weizenbaum's intention was not for Eliza to pass the Turing test, but to show to people that a clearly not intelligent program based on primitive pattern matching can appear to behave intelligently. He failed: His own secretary wanted to be left alone with the software and typed in her personal problems. Work on Eliza (1963-65, paper published 1966) until today is mostly misunderstood.

leethargo 3y ago
Not only his secretary, also some psychiatrists wanted Eliza as a tool to scale up their work clinically.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Say, has anyone deployed Hartford's Samantha yet?
adestefan 3y ago
Weizenbaum even wrote an entire book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation, on how AI is a crank term for computer science. The basic premise is that humans are not machine so stop using language that treats them as such. Especially that computers can decide what comes next, but only a human can choose what to do. The book also has one of the best and most succinct descriptions of Turing machines and the theoretical underpinning of computer science that I have ever read. Even if you’re an AI maximalist you should read the third chapter of the book.
- stavros 3y ago
  > Especially that computers can decide what comes next, but only a human can choose what to do. I don't understand this, all the programs I've ever written make decisions based on some factors. Are you talking about free will? If so, what is free will?
  - aatd86 3y ago
    Doing things because you can and not because you have to? Creative endeavors in the largest sense?
    - stavros 3y ago
      Does a program have to do things? What can it do? What does a human have to/can do?
      - aatd86 3y ago
        Traditionally, a program is a series of instructions. The program doesn't really act on its own. Now, a program which is objective driven and can infer from new inputs might be something else. Just like humans try to maximize the stability of their structures via a reward system. (it got slighty complex, faulty at times, or the tradeoff between work vs reward is not always in favor of work because we do not control every variable, hence procrastination for example, or addiction which is not a conscious process but neuro-chemically induced).
        stavros 3y ago
        But what does "act on its own" mean? If I give the program some randomness over its next action, is that "acting on its own"? When I'm at work, I act according to a series of instructions. Am I not acting on my own? This is a very philosophical discussion, but if I had an infinitely-powerful computer and could simulate an entire universe based on a series of instructions (physical laws), would the beings in that universe that created societies not be "acting on their own"?
        aatd86 3y ago
        Yes, as long as the computer chooses its next set of instructions in order to maximize a given value (the objective), I would say that it acts on its own. Instruction set that was never defined by anyone that is. If the instruction set is limited and defined by someone else, I believe it doesn't. I think, re. the simulated universe, that for us, they wouldn't have free will because we know causality (as long as we are all knowing about the simulation). But as far as they would be concerned, wouldn't they have free will if they know that they don't know everything and whether the future they imagine is realizable? If they knew with certainty that something was not realizable, they wouldn't bother, but since they don't know, either they try to realize a given future or they don't. Partial information provides choice of action, therefore free will.
- erikerikson 3y ago
  > humans are not machine Aren't we? Casual chains upon our matter produce emergent behaviors using the same physics and chemistry that our mechanistic creations rely upon. Certainly those behaviors and results do not produce the same repeatable, predictable results as our clockworks but that is the whole point of the field of AI (as opposed to the marketing corruption/term that is currently in vogue, so GAI if you prefer), to produce system and algorithm structures designed with architecture and patterns more like our own. Perhaps you believe in the ghost in the machine hypothesis? The magical soul that is more than the emergent evolving pattern produced across time by DNA replicators? That this undefinable, unmeasurable spirit makes us forever different?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - aftoprokrustes 3y ago
    This is an hypothesis. Of course, it is obvious that a lot of what human/animals are and do can be explained or described by physical processes. But there is the "hard problem of consciousness", to which no one has a satisfying answer. I feel sarcasm in your last paragraph, but it feels rather dishonest, in the sense that you voluntarily use rather crude and ridiculous formulations, as if it was the only alternative. But there is some arrogance in thinking that we, smart as we are, finally got the final answer about one of the hardest questions in philosophy and metaphysics. Materialism is not proven: it is a basic methodological assumption of modern science - meaning that we do not have the tools to either prove or disprove it. Newton, Gödel and lots of other renowed scientists are knowed to have opposed materialism. Let's accept that the question is open. On this topic, I always recommend reading the report of the Galileo Commission, which is a manifesto by a wide range of scientists and philosophers to reduce the stigma associated with even questioning this fundamental dogma.
    - erikerikson 3y ago
      You've written your response thoughtfully, thank you. Of course my description is of a hypothesis rather than ground truth. It turns out that there isn't consensus over whether "The Hard Problem Of Consciousness" is actually a problem[0] but I need to admit I didn't know that before reading your comment. You may have been too kind in your assumption of my competence level on the subject. As adjunct, my writing was about my own currently highest probability expectations rather than a mature reporting of the state of the field of experts. It did not seem worth (then or now) writing to such a standard on a public discussion forum, even this one. My last paragraph wasn't written with sarcasm (sorry to have given easy opportunity to read that in it) but it was a bit rushed, clumsily written, and unimaginative. Poorly written as it was, my curiosity was sincere (its been some time since I engaged with the state of the art) as was some of my dismissal. I have found it common that people have a belief in the uniqueness of humans as a platform for intelligence that frequently has its roots in sentiment and/or unexamined beliefs. Of course there are individuals whose thoughts meet a much higher bar. It is also the case that faith as a basis of belief does not invalidate the belief. There is so much we don't know. We only recently explained how aspirin works[1]. That didn't stop it from working well during our long period of usage prior to our understanding. I'm comfortable with that an its analog here, that I don't understand consciousness and its mechanisms completely. I seem to experience it and it seems to result from what is, despite my incomplete knowledge of what that "what is" comprises. However, there is an imbalance of evidence for the material hypothesis and it seems plausible that emergent dynamics are sufficient to explain. So... Yes, materialism is not proven and yet I currently hold it as the explanation that makes at least a partial contribution to the more complete truth. Further, that it is the explanation with the greatest volume of evidence and support. I suspect that it is sufficient for the emergence of intelligence and even consciousness in ourselves and as such sufficient for (through the same mechanisms) the emergence of intelligence and consciousness in our artificial constructs. Note that I also suspect we are still some distance from that inflection point. Thank you for the reference to the Galileo Commission. I had not heard of it and am always happy to consider new perspectives and challenge those which I have held. [0] https://survey2020.philpeople.org/ https://survey2020.philpeople.org/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14592543/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14592543/
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Previous: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901158 [PDF]
- extractionmech 3y ago
  “Me no likee” - Joseph Agassi This post of yours sent me looking for this and I ended up with (now reading) Agassi’s provocative (& brutal) takedown of this book. As to the content of the book, Agassi pointedly mentioned Weiner. I will of course read Weizenbaum after this. (thanks.) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286058724_Computer_Power_and_Human_Reason_From_Judgment_to_Calculation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286058724_Computer_... p.s. continuing on, the review turns very positive. Initial vitriol apparently more related to the “two worlds” matter.
scotty79 3y ago
> He failed I'd say he succeeded. It just seems that people are perfectly content with just appearance of intelligence.
tempodox 3y ago
All this “AI” hype is a constant reminder to me that you cannot reason anybody out of something that they want to believe. People's need to believe in miracles is obviously stronger than all reason.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  > cannot reason anybody out of something that they want to believe. Especially when your own reasons are not the slam dunk you think they are.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Both sides of this debate are competing to see who can post the most snide comments to the other.
    - ryanklee 3y ago
      There is a ton of arrogance everywhere on this subject. Anyone who doesn't see how complicated and nuanced and difficult figuring out what the hell is going on here really needs to sit down and think a little more carefully. There's absolutely no room for out-of-hand dismissal. We are all babes in the woods right now. We need each other, like always.
lulznews 3y ago
Never underestimate human stupidity!
extreme_orang 3y ago
Take a look at this project that has rediscovered and recreated the original ELIZA source code. You can even try out an accurate reimplementation of ELIZA http://findingeliza.org/ http://findingeliza.org/

by jll29 3y ago

leethargo 3y ago

Not only his secretary, also some psychiatrists wanted Eliza as a tool to scale up their work clinically.

moffkalast 3y ago
Say, has anyone deployed Hartford's Samantha yet?

adestefan 3y ago

Weizenbaum even wrote an entire book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation, on how AI is a crank term for computer science. The basic premise is that humans are not machine so stop using language that treats them as such. Especially that computers can decide what comes next, but only a human can choose what to do. The book also has one of the best and most succinct descriptions of Turing machines and the theoretical underpinning of computer science that I have ever read. Even if you’re an AI maximalist you should read the third chapter of the book.

stavros 3y ago
> Especially that computers can decide what comes next, but only a human can choose what to do. I don't understand this, all the programs I've ever written make decisions based on some factors. Are you talking about free will? If so, what is free will?
- aatd86 3y ago
  Doing things because you can and not because you have to? Creative endeavors in the largest sense?
  - stavros 3y ago
    Does a program have to do things? What can it do? What does a human have to/can do?
    - aatd86 3y ago
      Traditionally, a program is a series of instructions. The program doesn't really act on its own. Now, a program which is objective driven and can infer from new inputs might be something else. Just like humans try to maximize the stability of their structures via a reward system. (it got slighty complex, faulty at times, or the tradeoff between work vs reward is not always in favor of work because we do not control every variable, hence procrastination for example, or addiction which is not a conscious process but neuro-chemically induced).
      - stavros 3y ago
        But what does "act on its own" mean? If I give the program some randomness over its next action, is that "acting on its own"? When I'm at work, I act according to a series of instructions. Am I not acting on my own? This is a very philosophical discussion, but if I had an infinitely-powerful computer and could simulate an entire universe based on a series of instructions (physical laws), would the beings in that universe that created societies not be "acting on their own"?
        aatd86 3y ago
        Yes, as long as the computer chooses its next set of instructions in order to maximize a given value (the objective), I would say that it acts on its own. Instruction set that was never defined by anyone that is. If the instruction set is limited and defined by someone else, I believe it doesn't. I think, re. the simulated universe, that for us, they wouldn't have free will because we know causality (as long as we are all knowing about the simulation). But as far as they would be concerned, wouldn't they have free will if they know that they don't know everything and whether the future they imagine is realizable? If they knew with certainty that something was not realizable, they wouldn't bother, but since they don't know, either they try to realize a given future or they don't. Partial information provides choice of action, therefore free will.
erikerikson 3y ago
> humans are not machine Aren't we? Casual chains upon our matter produce emergent behaviors using the same physics and chemistry that our mechanistic creations rely upon. Certainly those behaviors and results do not produce the same repeatable, predictable results as our clockworks but that is the whole point of the field of AI (as opposed to the marketing corruption/term that is currently in vogue, so GAI if you prefer), to produce system and algorithm structures designed with architecture and patterns more like our own. Perhaps you believe in the ghost in the machine hypothesis? The magical soul that is more than the emergent evolving pattern produced across time by DNA replicators? That this undefinable, unmeasurable spirit makes us forever different?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- aftoprokrustes 3y ago
  This is an hypothesis. Of course, it is obvious that a lot of what human/animals are and do can be explained or described by physical processes. But there is the "hard problem of consciousness", to which no one has a satisfying answer. I feel sarcasm in your last paragraph, but it feels rather dishonest, in the sense that you voluntarily use rather crude and ridiculous formulations, as if it was the only alternative. But there is some arrogance in thinking that we, smart as we are, finally got the final answer about one of the hardest questions in philosophy and metaphysics. Materialism is not proven: it is a basic methodological assumption of modern science - meaning that we do not have the tools to either prove or disprove it. Newton, Gödel and lots of other renowed scientists are knowed to have opposed materialism. Let's accept that the question is open. On this topic, I always recommend reading the report of the Galileo Commission, which is a manifesto by a wide range of scientists and philosophers to reduce the stigma associated with even questioning this fundamental dogma.
  - erikerikson 3y ago
    You've written your response thoughtfully, thank you. Of course my description is of a hypothesis rather than ground truth. It turns out that there isn't consensus over whether "The Hard Problem Of Consciousness" is actually a problem[0] but I need to admit I didn't know that before reading your comment. You may have been too kind in your assumption of my competence level on the subject. As adjunct, my writing was about my own currently highest probability expectations rather than a mature reporting of the state of the field of experts. It did not seem worth (then or now) writing to such a standard on a public discussion forum, even this one. My last paragraph wasn't written with sarcasm (sorry to have given easy opportunity to read that in it) but it was a bit rushed, clumsily written, and unimaginative. Poorly written as it was, my curiosity was sincere (its been some time since I engaged with the state of the art) as was some of my dismissal. I have found it common that people have a belief in the uniqueness of humans as a platform for intelligence that frequently has its roots in sentiment and/or unexamined beliefs. Of course there are individuals whose thoughts meet a much higher bar. It is also the case that faith as a basis of belief does not invalidate the belief. There is so much we don't know. We only recently explained how aspirin works[1]. That didn't stop it from working well during our long period of usage prior to our understanding. I'm comfortable with that an its analog here, that I don't understand consciousness and its mechanisms completely. I seem to experience it and it seems to result from what is, despite my incomplete knowledge of what that "what is" comprises. However, there is an imbalance of evidence for the material hypothesis and it seems plausible that emergent dynamics are sufficient to explain. So... Yes, materialism is not proven and yet I currently hold it as the explanation that makes at least a partial contribution to the more complete truth. Further, that it is the explanation with the greatest volume of evidence and support. I suspect that it is sufficient for the emergence of intelligence and even consciousness in ourselves and as such sufficient for (through the same mechanisms) the emergence of intelligence and consciousness in our artificial constructs. Note that I also suspect we are still some distance from that inflection point. Thank you for the reference to the Galileo Commission. I had not heard of it and am always happy to consider new perspectives and challenge those which I have held. [0] https://survey2020.philpeople.org/ https://survey2020.philpeople.org/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14592543/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14592543/
1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Previous: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36901158 [PDF]
extractionmech 3y ago
“Me no likee” - Joseph Agassi This post of yours sent me looking for this and I ended up with (now reading) Agassi’s provocative (& brutal) takedown of this book. As to the content of the book, Agassi pointedly mentioned Weiner. I will of course read Weizenbaum after this. (thanks.) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286058724_Computer_Power_and_Human_Reason_From_Judgment_to_Calculation https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286058724_Computer_... p.s. continuing on, the review turns very positive. Initial vitriol apparently more related to the “two worlds” matter.

scotty79 3y ago

> He failed I'd say he succeeded. It just seems that people are perfectly content with just appearance of intelligence.

tempodox 3y ago

All this “AI” hype is a constant reminder to me that you cannot reason anybody out of something that they want to believe. People's need to believe in miracles is obviously stronger than all reason.

ryanklee 3y ago
> cannot reason anybody out of something that they want to believe. Especially when your own reasons are not the slam dunk you think they are.
- __loam 3y ago
  Both sides of this debate are competing to see who can post the most snide comments to the other.
  - ryanklee 3y ago
    There is a ton of arrogance everywhere on this subject. Anyone who doesn't see how complicated and nuanced and difficult figuring out what the hell is going on here really needs to sit down and think a little more carefully. There's absolutely no room for out-of-hand dismissal. We are all babes in the woods right now. We need each other, like always.

lulznews 3y ago

Never underestimate human stupidity!

extreme_orang 3y ago

Take a look at this project that has rediscovered and recreated the original ELIZA source code. You can even try out an accurate reimplementation of ELIZA http://findingeliza.org/ http://findingeliza.org/