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

Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

kurzweilai.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#141

Post by macspoofing »

md224 wrote: post #128
macspoofing wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe we're operating with different notions of "the question of consciousness", but I have to disagree that a perfect simulation of a human mind would dissolve the problem. Because human brains are magic? > And by "the problem" I mean the Hard Problem of Consciousness, the issue of how the hell the subjective experience of being arises in a lump of bloody meat (or in anything, really). You have your answer, the eff…

> Because human brains are magic? See, this is the problem with this virulent strain of Scientism making the rounds right now. There's this tendency to divide ideas into two camps: "explained by our current understanding of physics" and "magic". It seems like a knee-jerk reaction to religion, like anyone that posits that we don't have a complete understanding of reality is therefore a crypto-theist. It completely mis…

>See, this is the problem with this virulent strain of Scientism making the rounds right now.

We have a very good understanding of the fundamental forces and particles that govern the brain and our everyday experience. That doesn't mean that we'll use the vocabulary and mathematics of fundamental physics to explain brain processes, just as we don't use particle physics vocabulary when we model Hurricanes or explain cell processes. Nevertheless, whatever model or explanation you come up with for Consciousness better square with those fundamental physics otherwise you're going to be in the crackpot territory. That's not Scientism, that's just a fact.

>There's this tendency to divide ideas into two camps: "explained by our current understanding of physics" and "magic".

Again, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model (as well as the laws of Chemistry that abstract those) are not going away. Evolution and Natural Selection is not going away either. That constrains the kinds of explanations we will have for Consciousness. If you think understanding Consciousness will overturn either the Standard Model or Evolution, you're going to be very disappointed. Again, that's not Scientism, that's just a smart prediction.

>But telling me that Strong AI will basically solve this issue (and that any protestation is an appeal to "magic") comes across as hand-waving

I didn't say it will solve Conciousness. I think Conciousness is an ill-defined concept, but yet many people have very strong feelings about. I speculated we'd probably see it as such when (if) we are capable of building such a strong AI, probably before that.

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#142

Post by [deleted] »

md224 wrote: post #138
[deleted] wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> What determines whether something is conscious? I don't really have an empirical "test" for subjective consciousness beyond my own immediate, first-person experience of it. This may sound like a concession or even a defeat, but I think I'm allowed to posit that phenomena exist which we currently lack the empirical tools to investigate. "Currently" is the key word; as I said before, it is arrogant to assume consciou…

[deleted]

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#143

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #142
md224 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What determines whether something is conscious? I don't really have an empirical "test" for subjective consciousness beyond my own immediate, first-person experience of it. This may sound like a concession or even a defeat, but I think I'm allowed to posit that phenomena exist which we currently lack the empirical tools to investigate. "Currently" is the key word; as I said before, it is arrogant to assume consciou…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#144

Post by rybosome »

seiji wrote: post #118
md224 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine such a computer program fooling every human it interacts with for decades at a time, I think that would say something about ourselves and I think it would render the question of consciousness meaningless. Maybe we're operating with different notions of "the question of consciousness", but I have to disagree that a perfect simulation of a human mind would dissolve the problem. And by "the problem" I mean the…

to have a first-person subjective experience You actually can't prove _anybody else in the world_ besides you has a first person subjective experience. Trying to prove a magic talking box has experience when you can't prove another moist robot has experience is moving the goalpost too far out. require a paradigm shift so radical Not really, we just need more high speed training data. It'll all be available to way too…

> You actually can't prove _anybody else in the world_ besides you has a first person subjective experience.

That's absolutely true. My wife and I sometimes joke that each of us is an incorporeal figment in the other's dream. It's impossible for me to know with certainty that I am not the only real consciousness in existence. It's an interesting line of thought, but ultimately unproductive; what could I do if it's true? If it's not, then the validity of all of the other consciousnesses is just as pressing as mine. Either way it behooves me to behave as though it is true, so I suppose that's the starting point for all of my thoughts on this topic: I and all other humans have a first person subjective experience. I agree with (parent? gp?) that describing the nature of that experience is non-trivial.

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#145

Post by rahimnathwani »

bencoder wrote: post #22
jgrahamc wrote: post #3

This is a nicely written and clear explanation of why the announcement by the University of Reading is bullshit. In fact, it is was more than they deserve. Way more. I would suggest shunning them is the right response. The University of Reading is, of course, the august institution behind: http://blog.jgc.org/2010/05/inside-rfid-virus.html http://blog.jgc.org/2006/12/midas-number-or-why-divide-by-ze...

As someone who went to the University of Reading, this is pretty sad to me. I do wish they would stop devaluing my (and my peers') education with this nonsense.

s/education/credentials

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#146

Post by ellyagg »

macspoofing wrote: post #141
md224 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because human brains are magic? See, this is the problem with this virulent strain of Scientism making the rounds right now. There's this tendency to divide ideas into two camps: "explained by our current understanding of physics" and "magic". It seems like a knee-jerk reaction to religion, like anyone that posits that we don't have a complete understanding of reality is therefore a crypto-theist. It completely mis…

>See, this is the problem with this virulent strain of Scientism making the rounds right now. We have a very good understanding of the fundamental forces and particles that govern the brain and our everyday experience. That doesn't mean that we'll use the vocabulary and mathematics of fundamental physics to explain brain processes, just as we don't use particle physics vocabulary when we model Hurricanes or explain c…

You should try harder not to assume the people you're talking to are morons. The person you're debating doesn't think evolution is going away, not even a little bit, not even for a second. That you don't recognize this means you should be more charitable in understanding his point of view.

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#147

Post by macspoofing »

ellyagg wrote: post #146
macspoofing wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>See, this is the problem with this virulent strain of Scientism making the rounds right now. We have a very good understanding of the fundamental forces and particles that govern the brain and our everyday experience. That doesn't mean that we'll use the vocabulary and mathematics of fundamental physics to explain brain processes, just as we don't use particle physics vocabulary when we model Hurricanes or explain c…

You should try harder not to assume the people you're talking to are morons. The person you're debating doesn't think evolution is going away, not even a little bit, not even for a second. That you don't recognize this means you should be more charitable in understanding his point of view.

>That you don't recognize this means you should be more charitable in understanding his point of view.

Should that understanding have come before or after being accused of 'Scientism', which feels like an insult, but I can't be sure because I don't really know what that means in context.

>The person you're debating doesn't think evolution is going away, not even a little bit, not even for a second.

I didn't imply that he did. The point I was trying to get across is that there are some real constraints on the type of explanations we'll have with respect to Consciousness. We are not going to need unknown exotic physics to explain it, and whatever the answer is it will stay comfortably within the current Evolutionary framework. Obviously that could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it. This should not be a controversial statement.

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#148

Post by md224 »

ellyagg wrote: post #146
macspoofing wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>See, this is the problem with this virulent strain of Scientism making the rounds right now. We have a very good understanding of the fundamental forces and particles that govern the brain and our everyday experience. That doesn't mean that we'll use the vocabulary and mathematics of fundamental physics to explain brain processes, just as we don't use particle physics vocabulary when we model Hurricanes or explain c…

You should try harder not to assume the people you're talking to are morons. The person you're debating doesn't think evolution is going away, not even a little bit, not even for a second. That you don't recognize this means you should be more charitable in understanding his point of view.

Eh, I'm willing to cut them some slack. I talked about science as a continuous process of revision, which might give the impression that I'm making a Pessimistic Induction argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessimistic_induction) against all scientific conclusions. I think macspoofing was just trying to counter with examples of scientific theories that seem pretty airtight, and that's fair. Also I basically accused them of falling prey to mindless Scientism, which was admittedly a bit harsh (seeing people attribute "magical" explanations to skeptics can trigger my rage mode, apparently).

Anyway, this whole thing is very controversial (they don't call the Hard Problem "hard" for no reason), and I can see the appeal of trying to safeguard the scientific process of knowledge-building from the messy weirdness of subjective experience. Time will tell if consciousness can be explained by a more advanced physics. I'm certainly looking forward to it.

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#149

Post by coldtea »

wlievens wrote: post #112
coldtea wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, if only Ken Rockwell was not entirely sane, and said things that make sense for the market segment he refers too. If anything, it's the pixel-peepers and the "I need a bigger lens" that are non-scientific nuts (essentially gear fashion victims, who would buy a $10,000 Leica when a $1000 Nikon can give the same results).

I'm pretty sure that in the hands of a sufficiently skilled photographer, that Leica does produce a better picture. The quality of the sensor is objectively better.

>The quality of the sensor is objectively better.

Actually it's not. For one, Leica doesn't make their own sensors. Second, they have a very hard time with their processor software (in camera). The first model they put out a few years ago had awful color rendition and strange casts. And not that great performance in low light either. And I mean compared to the models of the era then. At least, IIRC, they smartly removed the antialias filter, or put a very soft one, which gave them a more sharpness, but that was mostly it. Nothing making the camera (M8) worthy being sold for multi-thousand dollars sans lens.

What made Leica legendary (back in the day) was their mechanical construction capabilities in the year of analogue cameras this mattered. In the era of digital they cannot compete with a behemoth like Canon making their own sensors, processors and firmware to drive them. Or even Nikon.

Of course they still make good lenses. But that's just part of the story -- and they are not that better than comparable in price high ends models from other brands.

So, no, a "sufficiently skilled photographer" wouldn't produce a better picture with the Leica. It's an inferior product in every way except mechanical construction (and re-sale value). Plus it's a rangefinder -- the precise focus capability of a DSLR is much better.

In fact most accomplished photographers today don't shoot Leica's. They did that back in the day for reporting (like Bresson or Capa). Today they use either some Canon high end (D)SLR or some medium format (if they want to signal "professional").

Re: Response by Ray Kurzweil to chatbot Eugene Goostman “passing the Turing test”

#150

Post by dragonbonheur »

I notice that in his conversation with the chatbot, Mr Kurzweil himself fails to meet his own criteria for the Turing test. Shouldn't the machine expect the human not to behave like a machine and thus have a sensible conversation?
Post reply on HN