When would I judge a computer to be intelligent?

By -
Precisely when it stops being a machine. A machine is something built to serve someone else's purposes. But to think is to have one's own purposes. When a chess playing computer tells its "master", "I don't feel like playing today: go do something else", that will be an intelligent computer. But it will no longer be a machine.


Comments

  1. Samson Corwell8:00 PM

    So basically when it develops intentions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:01 AM

      Right. Or intentionality, as fancy pants philosophers might say.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous10:33 PM

    A computer is only but a specific model of the human mind -- a product suited to serve its purpose within that model-- it is not and can never be "intelligent", because it's computations are limited to our own knowledge, even if it can do it all the more faster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:04 AM

      I essentially agree with you Joe, except that: if I had been an angel 4 billion years ago and God had told me that one day there would be intelligent hunks of meat walking around, I woulda told Him to get the f outta here.

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell11:40 AM

      In reply to Joseph: You really think that? I mean quantum computers aren't gonna operate like your standard Turing machine.

      Delete
  3. Keshav Srinivasan1:09 PM

    If a human specifically programs a computer to have "intentionality", then would that count as "something built to serve someone else's purposes"? By the way, would you count passing the Turing Test perfectly to be a sufficient test of intelligence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:12 PM

      'If a human specifically programs a computer to have "intentionality"'

      I can't even imagine what that is supposed to mean. And why is "intentionality" in scare quotes: it is a standard philosophical term, not something I just made up.

      "By the way, would you count passing the Turing Test perfectly to be a sufficient test of intelligence?"

      Of course not. If a rabbit trap never fails to catch a rabbit, would you say it is intelligent?

      But it would be a sign of some amazing programing skills on someone's part!

      Delete
    2. gcallah1:15 PM

      'If a human specifically programs a computer to have "intentionality"'

      To explain further: you have essentially just said, "Well, if I program my computer to have consciousness, then what?" Of course, no one has any idea what that would even mean, to "program" a computer to be conscious.

      Delete
  4. marris7:06 PM

    Gene, it is very easy to write a program that does not feel like playing chess today:

    print("I don't feel like playing chess today")

    I can even add this code to a program that does other things, like plays chess. It could decide at startup (maybe based on a random bit) whether it takes one path or another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah7:10 PM

      You are joking around, right marris? (And you do realize I was a professional programmer for 18 years, and now how to write print statements, right?)

      Delete
  5. marris8:42 AM

    I'm saying your definition of AI is not useful. It sounds more like flighty-ness which we can already do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:54 AM

      I'm starting to suspect that if you see a billboard with the words "I am sad" written on it, that you feel bad for the wood.

      Delete
  6. marris2:00 PM

    Hahaha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah3:11 PM

      But you do seem to think that ePrint statement putting on the screen "i am not interested in playing chess" indicates a genuine lack of interest on the computer's part

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more