Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
framingbusiness.net
Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
1–10 of 49 posts
Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
#2There is probably no way of formally proving that an AI actually has general intelligence on a human level. The Turing test is merely a more elaborate way of saying "we'll know one when we see one".
A generally intelligent AI will not be passive, it will demand to be recognized for what it is and perhaps as an independent creature with rights. We would be wise not to try to enslave these creatures.
Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
#3I loved the comparison of Watson to Deep Blue as a "bigger steamroller".
Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
#4I loved the comparison of Watson to Deep Blue as a "bigger steamroller".
Yeah, somewhat akin to saying "Noam Chomsky is just a better known linguist". factually true, but misses much.
Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
#5Two great minds, too brief answers.
However, Kurzweil has written about it elsewhere. I don't know enough about Chomsky to know if he's expressed his opinions on AI in more depth, but he seems to be suggesting AI can never really "think".
Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
#6I liked Kurzweil's response best: "As long as AI has any flaws or limitations, people will jump on these. By the time that the set of these limitations is nil, AI will have long since surpassed unaided human intelligence."
Watson isn't the end, it's a building block. It's true that it's been largely hyped to some degree, but I think that opens doors that wouldn't have been opened otherwise. Chomsky's dismissal seems too quick.
Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
#7You have to respect Chomsky, but he certainly comes off like a curmudgeon here. He can't even be bothered to clearly explain his lack of interest in Watson.
It seems less like lack of interest than anger at what he sees as a misguided approach. I think he thinks that Watson and Deep Blue are "brute force" solutions (hence the steamroller metaphor), while his work on the relation of computation and grammar (and the vision guy he mentioned) actually get at the core of intelligence.
He may think there is a small elegant machine in the brain that understands grammar, and which is of course computational. He may be right but Watson is still interesting for any reasonably curious person. It's not obvious how much brute force you need to play Jeopardy.
Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
#8There is probably no way of formally proving that an AI actually has general intelligence on a human level. The Turing test is merely a more elaborate way of saying "we'll know one when we see one". A generally intelligent AI will not be passive, it will demand to be recognized for what it is and perhaps as an independent creature with rights. We would be wise not to try to enslave these creatures.
You're projecting your own mind design onto the minds of all possible AGIs. You don't know whether it/they will be active or passive or think as an individual or have a concept of rights or have any preference toward slavery.
Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
#9Calling a system "bigger steamroller" is easy and may make one sound cool, but actually designing and making one that is as good as Watson is hard, much harder than non-engineers will believe, and such attempts often give more insights than mere paper-logic and debates IMHO. Ability to entertain drastically different ideas is a feature of great minds.
Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer
#10There is probably no way of formally proving that an AI actually has general intelligence on a human level. The Turing test is merely a more elaborate way of saying "we'll know one when we see one". A generally intelligent AI will not be passive, it will demand to be recognized for what it is and perhaps as an independent creature with rights. We would be wise not to try to enslave these creatures.
You're projecting your own mind design onto the minds of all possible AGIs. You don't know whether it/they will be active or passive or think as an individual or have a concept of rights or have any preference toward slavery.
Exactly, the majority of what our minds are concerned with is evolutionary baggage derived from natural selection.