From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:11:00 -0500 Archived: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:49:46 -0500 Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 02:28:54 -0500 (EST) >Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:27:04 -0000 >>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >intelligence is defined. As long as intelligence remains >undefined then it can not be proven that the humans in the >argument are intelligent. The argument also does not take into Well, with that one sentence, this entire thread is trivialized. Unfortunately, Jason has put his finger on a fundamental problem. There have always only been operational definitions - intelligence is what intelligence tests measure. Such definitions don't help much to understand the putative goal of autonomous machines. Our operational definitions of intelligence can only arise from human expectations about human behaviour. How would we even know when a machine is intelligent, much less when it becomes super- intelligent? It would be like trying to understand the intelligence of a tree. William Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp