What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?
#2> When I ask Google “Who did IBM’s Deep Blue system defeat?” and it gives me an infobox with the answer “Kasparov” in big letters, it has correctly understood my question. Of course this understanding is limited. If I follow up my question to Google with “When?”, it gives me the dictionary definition of “when” — it doesn’t interpret my question as part of a dialogue.
Google Search doesn't, but Google Assistant does. I posed the exact queries suggested by the article and the second query of simply the word "when" did give the correct answer (May 11 1997).
Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?
#3> When I ask Google “Who did IBM’s Deep Blue system defeat?” and it gives me an infobox with the answer “Kasparov” in big letters, it has correctly understood my question. Of course this understanding is limited. If I follow up my question to Google with “When?”, it gives me the dictionary definition of “when” — it doesn’t interpret my question as part of a dialogue. Google Search doesn't, but Google Assistant does.…
I remember that when my friend got a Google Home almost 2 years ago, I was asking it some questions to explore the limitations. I asked about a certain restaurant chain, and it gave me the information, but then I asked "is there one near me". It listed all places with "one" in the name near me.
I wonder if now it would correctly take the previous context into account. Google has been working a lot on improving their search and assistants to be "conversational". [1] looks like one of the results of this endevour.
[1] https://cloud.google.com/dialogflow/docs/contexts-overview
Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?
#4I'm with John Searle on the Chinese room [1] opinion, i.e. that a machine cannot be said to "understand" language even if it is able to pass the Turing Test. That is because when we say "understand", we are referring to particular kind of human experience (qualia?) that a machine simply doesn't seem to have, but animals, for example, do.
Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?
#5I'm with John Searle on the Chinese room [1] opinion, i.e. that a machine cannot be said to "understand" language even if it is able to pass the Turing Test. That is because when we say "understand", we are referring to particular kind of human experience (qualia?) that a machine simply doesn't seem to have, but animals, for example, do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
It’s interesting that you said the machine doesn’t seem to have the experience, but animals do seem to have it. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?
#6I'm with John Searle on the Chinese room [1] opinion, i.e. that a machine cannot be said to "understand" language even if it is able to pass the Turing Test. That is because when we say "understand", we are referring to particular kind of human experience (qualia?) that a machine simply doesn't seem to have, but animals, for example, do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
I can say that you don't have qualia and you can't prove me wrong.
Does that seem dangerous to anyone else?
I also don't see any distinction between "qualia" and "soul" other than spelling, but perhaps it's because I don't have one.
Finally, I have this question for Searle: Say you understand English. Does any specific neuron in your brain understand English? No, the larger system of neurons+neuronal connections does, so why doesn't the system of grad student+book understand Chinese?
Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?
#7I'm with John Searle on the Chinese room [1] opinion, i.e. that a machine cannot be said to "understand" language even if it is able to pass the Turing Test. That is because when we say "understand", we are referring to particular kind of human experience (qualia?) that a machine simply doesn't seem to have, but animals, for example, do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
I can say that you don't have qualia and you can't prove me wrong. Does that seem dangerous to anyone else? I also don't see any distinction between "qualia" and "soul" other than spelling, but perhaps it's because I don't have one. Finally, I have this question for Searle: Say you understand English. Does any specific neuron in your brain understand English? No, the larger system of neurons+neuronal connections does…
Dangerous? No. To me it just seems to mean that “qualia” is not a particularly useful concept, particularly when discussing the capabilities of computer software.
Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?
#8I'm with John Searle on the Chinese room [1] opinion, i.e. that a machine cannot be said to "understand" language even if it is able to pass the Turing Test. That is because when we say "understand", we are referring to particular kind of human experience (qualia?) that a machine simply doesn't seem to have, but animals, for example, do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Unfortunately you have no way of determining if a machine or animal have this particular experience qualia. You cant even determine of other people beside yourself have it, which gives rise to solipsism.
It like saying that red-headed people doesn't have a soul - there is no way to disprove that assertion.
Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?
#9Self consciousness is required for understanding and intelligence
Re: What does it mean for a machine to “understand”?
#10Self consciousness is required for understanding and intelligence
why?