4 ms·

> The first school of thought believes that AI can be achieved by mimicking real conscious beings It's important to note the true meaning behind this school of

by acchow 12y ago

> The first school of thought believes that AI can be achieved by mimicking real conscious beings It's important to note the true meaning behind this school of thought - that mimicry and "true" intelligence are actually equivalent. Behaviorists believe this, and the validity of the Turing Test along with it.

swombat 12y ago
I think it might actually be in Civ5 that I first heard the following quote: "Asking whether a computer can think is about as useful as asking whether a submarine can swim." I think this is fairly insightful and relevant.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  That's from Djigstra. I digress. Most of the times, mimicking Nature works very well. We tend to always remember our most spectacular failure, but that's a selection bias.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    Cars don't run like horses, solar panels don't use photosynthesis, engines don't work like muscles, computers don't look like biological neurons, etc, etc.
  - andreasvc 12y ago
    His name is Dijkstra. I'm curious how you arrive at the conclusion that mimicking nature works most of the time, do you have some examples?
    - marcosdumay 12y ago
      Looks like the post is too old, and I can't correct it anymore. On my defense, I was quite tired when I wrote it. You don't have to go very far looking for examples. The fictional Nautilus submarine was named after the animal Julio Verne copied its depth control system (the same one all real submarines use till today). Also, the first submarines' shape copied whales, a design that was adapted (but not completely replaced) because it does not work as well witout also copying their propulsion system. By the way, birds wings are better than planes ones in several important ways (but worse in a few others). We don't copy them because we don't have good enough materials, not because it's not a good idea.
andreasvc 12y ago
The wording of your comment reveals your bias towards the other school of thought, Strong AI. But what is "true" intelligence? I don't think anyone has a clear definition of this, and in reality it's all just a philosophical quagmire. An important distinction is whether mimicry is equivalent to "true" intelligence, or whether it should be treated as such, barring a better litmus test. With that in mind, taking a methodologically agnostic perspective of adequately reproducing behavior that is predicated as intelligence seems like a much more reasonable goal to me.
- Sami_Lehtinen 12y ago
  Strong AI wouldn't make same silly mistakes which people make all the time. So would the Strong AI need to be smart enough to play dumb to fool people? Because people are illogical, smart machines surely wouldn't be?
  - andreasvc 12y ago
    A Strong AI is by definition more intelligent than humans, so it could also deceive. No need to "be illogical", just playing along. In any case it's rather irrelevant, because presumably if there is a Strong AI, it would be so impressive that there is no need for a Turing test to prove it.

by acchow 12y ago

swombat 12y ago

I think it might actually be in Civ5 that I first heard the following quote: "Asking whether a computer can think is about as useful as asking whether a submarine can swim." I think this is fairly insightful and relevant.

marcosdumay 12y ago
That's from Djigstra. I digress. Most of the times, mimicking Nature works very well. We tend to always remember our most spectacular failure, but that's a selection bias.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  Cars don't run like horses, solar panels don't use photosynthesis, engines don't work like muscles, computers don't look like biological neurons, etc, etc.
- andreasvc 12y ago
  His name is Dijkstra. I'm curious how you arrive at the conclusion that mimicking nature works most of the time, do you have some examples?
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    Looks like the post is too old, and I can't correct it anymore. On my defense, I was quite tired when I wrote it. You don't have to go very far looking for examples. The fictional Nautilus submarine was named after the animal Julio Verne copied its depth control system (the same one all real submarines use till today). Also, the first submarines' shape copied whales, a design that was adapted (but not completely replaced) because it does not work as well witout also copying their propulsion system. By the way, birds wings are better than planes ones in several important ways (but worse in a few others). We don't copy them because we don't have good enough materials, not because it's not a good idea.

andreasvc 12y ago

The wording of your comment reveals your bias towards the other school of thought, Strong AI. But what is "true" intelligence? I don't think anyone has a clear definition of this, and in reality it's all just a philosophical quagmire. An important distinction is whether mimicry is equivalent to "true" intelligence, or whether it should be treated as such, barring a better litmus test. With that in mind, taking a methodologically agnostic perspective of adequately reproducing behavior that is predicated as intelligence seems like a much more reasonable goal to me.

Sami_Lehtinen 12y ago
Strong AI wouldn't make same silly mistakes which people make all the time. So would the Strong AI need to be smart enough to play dumb to fool people? Because people are illogical, smart machines surely wouldn't be?
- andreasvc 12y ago
  A Strong AI is by definition more intelligent than humans, so it could also deceive. No need to "be illogical", just playing along. In any case it's rather irrelevant, because presumably if there is a Strong AI, it would be so impressive that there is no need for a Turing test to prove it.