Slashdot Mirror
Wolfram Promises Computing That Answers Questions
An anonymous reader writes "Computer scientist Stephen Wolfram feels that he has put together at least the initial version of a computer that actually answers factual questions, a la Star Trek's ship computers. His version will be found on their Web-based application, Wolfram Alpha. What does this mean? Well, instead of returning links to pages that may (or may not) contain the answer to your questions, Wolfram will respond with the actual answer. Just imagine typing in 'How many bones are in the human body?' and getting the answer." Right now, though the search entry field is in place, Alpha is not yet generally available -- only "to a few select individuals."
Q: How many bones are in the human body
A: Did you mean cumulatively or at any point in time?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
package com.wolfram;
public class Alpha {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("42");
}
}
I don't think this can be examined without language issues. Lojban attempts to make a parsable constructed language (currently undergoing a few grammar issues, but mostly locked down). As we get closer to the Singularity, with regards to infant-style general AI and perhaps even transhuman implants (thought detector or such), we'll see perhaps a myriad of unambiguous languages.
Your cautiousness and pragmatism in the first two sentences was noted and admired. Then you used the word Singularity in the Vinge sense, and my woo-detector pegged.
...they only give you answers.
Actually, the original source, TechCrunch, not the dumbed down linked article, discusses in much better detail what Alpha is about.
Good points, but this is still just a different (better perhaps?) implementation of the same concept. The big issue with the implementation is that it will only "know" what you tell it, the same as any other computer. Further it will only be able to tell you about what you want to know based on the system's ability to parse your question and return what it "thinks" you want to know.
Look, I'm not saying it isn't a cool idea, I'm just saying that it isn't as shiny and new as the creator would lead you to believe. I'm also not inclined to be impressed considering that it isn't even available to try yet. It hasn't even been released yet.
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
Atomic mass of plutonium?
Circumference of the earth?
Number of horns on a unicorn?
Google already does this. It's giving you the answer and linking to the page that has it. All Google needs is to be able to use these things in the calculator ("circumference of the earth in furlongs").
Oh and related to your "rupees in a dollar". "1 dollar in indian rupees" will tell you.
You look for an answer until you find it or give up.
Oh, so (i) you don't understand the question, then (ii) you look for an answer, (iii, A) you find it (how? how will you know you found it?), or (iii, B) you give up.
Just wanted to make sure that this thread was really about this. Here's a new low, even for slashdot.
three, sir
Check out my sysadmin blog!
I'm not sure I really want to trust a product by Wolfram and Heart. Seems like there is a possibility of some soul loss.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
It goes further than that. Try Googling "how old is Britney Spears" and "what is the population of iceland" (without quotes). The answer appears at the top, separately from the search results.
Google them together, it returns your post!
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Who says that this is insufficient for "thinking"?
I think understanding the Chinese room paradox as having provided a solution to this question is a misinterpretation. The best thing to take away is that "thinking" is not well defined.
You look for an answer until you find it or give up.
Oh, so (i) you don't understand the question, then (ii) you look for an answer, (iii, A) you find it (how? how will you know you found it?)
Once you have found the answer only then will you understand the question, grasshooper.
Also, until you can claim to solve the halting problem in real life (as opposed to a "theoretical device"), don't go around claiming that the brain is turing-complete. It isn't, and cannot be - not in this universe, anyway.
Of course the brain is turing complete. You can prove it the same way you prove any other machine is turing complete: it has the ability to simulate a turing machine. I can simulate a tape driven turing machine pretty damn easily with a sheet of paper and a pencil. I think you're confused as to what "turing-complete" means. Solving the halting problem is not a requirement. In fact, you can prove that a turing machine cannot solve the halting problem. So the brain's inability to do so doesn't have any bearing on whether it's turing complete.
The Chinese Room is misdirection, pure and simple. We're supposed to conclude that because the person in the room doesn't have the subjective experience of understanding Chinese, the system as a whole (the person, the data tables, the rules) doesn't "really" understand Chinese.
But there's no logical reason to assume a specific part of the system should have a subjective experience of understanding something that the system as a whole understands. This becomes obvious if you follow the logic a few more steps. Do you believe each specific part of your brain subjectively experiences understanding? How about individual neurons? How about the atoms that comprise the neurons in your brain? If you don't believe these things have the subjective experience of understanding the things that your brain as a whole understands, then your brain is incapable of "really" understanding anything, according to the logic of the Chinese Room.
This space unintentionally left unblank.