|
The answer to the Chinese Room Puzzle and the Turing Test stuff, to me, is that it's irrelevant if what's going on is "true" intelligence or if it has the "spark" of life or is "self-aware" or "human-level" or any of the other terms we try to use for the ineffable difference between us and the toaster. We'll have intelligence when we build something that we're not comfortable treating as not intelligent. If you want to get Cartesian you don't know for sure that anyone's intelligent except maybe yourself, you extend recognition to others because you have to and because it's hard not to when they demand it. If machines are made that are sufficiently autonomous and convincing then we might as well recognize them once it becomes socially awkward not to and leave the fine detail work to the philosophers. To that end, we'll make bigger gains in public perception with things that aren't even part of the core intelligence question, like improved natural language skills and better-engineered body-language. This is also not a bar limited by what's achievable in the finicky hypothetical-technical sense that people normally talk about, since humans if left alone will invest themselves in imaginary friends or pet rocks or a volleyball with a face drawn on it, sooner or later they'll make a Siri that's a little too good and we'll start having this conversation more seriously even if under the hood it's nothing new. Those are my two AM two cents.
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:Qualia isn't equal to information processing. Qualia isn't real / isn't important / isn't provable in anyone outside yourself / can be done without for the sake of social graces if the inert thing in front of you insists on its autonomy. Take your pick. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:It's relevant because the OP asked about human-level AI, not a Turing-safe simulation that approximates human responses. Even then, because of the inability of any AI technology we know of right now to understand and interpret meaning, past a certain point you are going to have a really hard time making something capable of convincingly simulating a system that understands it. Passing a Turing test is a lot different from a system capable of organically being a celebrated poet or artist in a way that isn't just mathematically miming others' art but a real expression of feeling – or even just simulating this. And I'm saying it's an illusion to go after the mythic "human-level AI", because in practice we'll settle for something less or different than ourselves. We don't test everyone we meet to see if they have "true understanding" by getting them to create some original poetry, we just see they appear to be humans and figure their experience must therefore be close to ours, so we extend a courtesy to them. A machine that speaks, travels, asserts its autonomy and protects its existence - whether it does these things by 'simulating' rather than 'truly understanding' - is from an outside perspective about as human as the man on the street. It''s like the "what is knowledge?" debate, where people keep pushing that knowledge has a special status beyond justified true belief. It's reliant on some unverifiable, internal but also universal properties that we can never seem to measure, yet somehow we get by day-to-day without a bullet-proof definition of knowledge because those justified true beliefs are close enough.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:None of the picks, and the main point was that your post was confused about the difference between qualia and information processing. If the question is "how do we get human-level qualia for an artificial intelligence?", the answer is "you can't, it doesn't matter". You can't even prove that other human beings are experiencing qualia distinct from information processing, so it's a pointless goal for AI.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 23:17
|
|