81–90 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this “AI” hype is a constant reminder to me that you cannot reason anybody out of something that they want to believe. People's need to believe in miracles is obviously stronger than all reason.
> cannot reason anybody out of something that they want to believe. Especially when your own reasons are not the slam dunk you think they are.
[1] https://www.civilizr.com/communication/azile-chatbot-savage-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot compute what you don't understand, and even if you did by accident, you wouldn't know you computed it, as long as you don't understand what you're trying to do. That seems obvious to me. And "computable" and "computable for us" are very different things. It's not about the machines or algorithms we might make one day, provided that we fully understand everything that goes into our our thoughts and emotions…
You're misunderstanding the terms. For something to be computable is very different from whether or not we know or are presently able to compute it. For something to be computable, it only needs to be possible to show that it is logically possible, by e.g. decomposing the problem into elements we know are computable or showing an example . The existence of the human brain absent any evidence of any supernatural eleme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A girl would like to ask a boy to the high school dance. A computer can do all the calculations to decide on if it's a good idea. Given the inputs of the time they have spent together, the number of glances that are passed between then in the halls between classes, if he doesn't have a date yet or not, etc. The probability adds up to ask. So the machine decides to ask. The girl feels it. Has all the time they've spen…
All the tingles, feelings, anxieties and hesitations are activities triggered by little programs that work autonomously and are fully deterministic. The girl is fooled
The determining factors driving a computer program can be fully quanitified; the sets of inputs and conditions is finite, can be reasoned over, and described fully.
That's basically the fundamental description of computing, in fact, and what makes a Turing machine.
The determining factors "IRL" are effectively infinite, a causal "chain" of infinite (or near infinite) complexity that expands backwards to the Big Bang, (or whatever) and sideways around the planet and beyond. There is no catalog you could make of all the "causes" that could isolate things enough to truly reason over and describe them all.
And so, yeah, to say it's all just "little programs" is the most ridiculous reductionism, that basically purposefully neglects to see the complexity and depth of the world around us.
I personally take a strongly determinist, materialist philosophical position. But I would never ever express that in terms of "programs" or anything similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially that computers can decide what comes next, but only a human can choose what to do. I don't understand this, all the programs I've ever written make decisions based on some factors. Are you talking about free will? If so, what is free will?
A girl would like to ask a boy to the high school dance. A computer can do all the calculations to decide on if it's a good idea. Given the inputs of the time they have spent together, the number of glances that are passed between then in the halls between classes, if he doesn't have a date yet or not, etc. The probability adds up to ask. So the machine decides to ask. The girl feels it. Has all the time they've spen…
"Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will?" - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-quantum-mech...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weizenbaum even wrote an entire book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation, on how AI is a crank term for computer science. The basic premise is that humans are not machine so stop using language that treats them as such. Especially that computers can decide what comes next, but only a human can choose what to do. The book also has one of the best and most succinct descriptions of Turing mach…
> humans are not machine Aren't we? Casual chains upon our matter produce emergent behaviors using the same physics and chemistry that our mechanistic creations rely upon. Certainly those behaviors and results do not produce the same repeatable, predictable results as our clockworks but that is the whole point of the field of AI (as opposed to the marketing corruption/term that is currently in vogue, so GAI if you pr…
Can one see original Eliza sourcode anywhere?
You may find the original here:
https://sites.google.com/view/elizagen-org/commonly-known-el...
Here is the pointer to the original Eliza paper https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/365153.365168 Note that Weizenbaum was an AI critic: Weizenbaum's intention was not for Eliza to pass the Turing test, but to show to people that a clearly not intelligent program based on primitive pattern matching can appear to behave intelligently. He failed: His own secretary wanted to be left alone with the software and typed in her p…
Weizenbaum even wrote an entire book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation, on how AI is a crank term for computer science. The basic premise is that humans are not machine so stop using language that treats them as such. Especially that computers can decide what comes next, but only a human can choose what to do. The book also has one of the best and most succinct descriptions of Turing mach…
So the Turing test actually tests not a technology but the level of intelligence of the user. So, we are doomed, it seems.:)
Similarly, I believe a lot of early Turing Test successes kind-of cheated and had their bots pretend to be ESL, on the grounds that the interrogators would interpret their unnatural responses not as a robot but as a second-language speaker's human mistakes. But people who teach English as a second language, or interact with language-learners a lot will learn the types of mistakes each group of learners make, and will spot unnatural mistakes a lot faster.
Now that I think about it, that a major factor in determining Turing test performance isn't the intelligence of the testers but their knowledge does highlight why it's not a great measure of intelligence in the first place.