Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

framingbusiness.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#11

Post by iwwr »

MrScruff wrote: post #10
Jach wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be very strange if the AI had no self-image or were not concerned with its own survival. If it's only lacking a self-image, it may become a solipsistic entity of sorts.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#13

Post by amalcon »

iwwr wrote: post #2

There 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.

There is probably no way of formally proving that a human has general intelligence on a human level, except by definition.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#15

Post by tzs »

Steamrollers, even bigger ones don't learn from their mistakes. Watson does. For example, in one of the auditions they did for the Jeopardy producers, the questions in the category each referred to two holidays which occurred in the same calendar month, and the question was supposed to ask what is that month.

Watson did not get it. it was finding sensible answers, but answers that did not fit the category. It got a couple wrong, then stopped buzzing on that category. After it saw the correct answers from the other contestants for a few, it started buzzing again, with the correct answers.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#16

Post by tsotha »

iwwr wrote: post #11
MrScruff wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the majority of what our minds are concerned with is evolutionary baggage derived from natural selection.

It would be very strange if the AI had no self-image or were not concerned with its own survival. If it's only lacking a self-image, it may become a solipsistic entity of sorts.

It's only strange because intelligence has never (by us, at least) been constructed before.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#18

Post by synnik »

tzs wrote: post #15

Steamrollers, even bigger ones don't learn from their mistakes. Watson does. For example, in one of the auditions they did for the Jeopardy producers, the questions in the category each referred to two holidays which occurred in the same calendar month, and the question was supposed to ask what is that month. Watson did not get it. it was finding sensible answers, but answers that did not fit the category. It got a c…

There is a difference between learning from your mistakes and using the same algorithm on an updated data source.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#19

Post by joshes »

jokermatt999 wrote: post #5

Two 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".

I agree with your comment about the exaggerated brevity. But I am not so certain he is commenting that AI will never be capable of thought. My reading of his comment, and of the original Turing paper which he is citing (Computing Machinery and Intelligence by AM Turing, 1950), is that the term "think" needs to be re-thought itself. That is to say, the common use of the word "think" to differentiate between the processes of AI and Natural intelligence is irrelevant at best, and misguided at worst. But I may be way off.

Re: Noam Chomsky v. IBM’s Watson Computer

#20

Post by tjr »

synnik wrote: post #18
tzs wrote: post #15

Steamrollers, even bigger ones don't learn from their mistakes. Watson does. For example, in one of the auditions they did for the Jeopardy producers, the questions in the category each referred to two holidays which occurred in the same calendar month, and the question was supposed to ask what is that month. Watson did not get it. it was finding sensible answers, but answers that did not fit the category. It got a c…

There is a difference between learning from your mistakes and using the same algorithm on an updated data source.

Maybe about this time next week someone will post a thread, "Show HN: I Rewrote Watson in 112 Lines of Ruby as a Weekend Side Project"
Post reply on HN