Everyone knows that the computer will need semantic abilities.
Tell that Dr Treister-Goren:-) I can only shake my head at Hal producing sentences like "ball now park"; where's the ball? Where's the park? Hal's only interfaces to the world are stdin and stdout, presumably. Hal's world consists of words, and nothing more; "ball" and "park" refer to objects that aren't part of his world. Doesn't make sense at all.
Also. If there is *anything* that you think a computer should be able to do before it can be considered equivalent to a person, then incorporate it into the turing test!
The Turing Test seeks to answer the question: "Can machines think?" It sets out to do this by playing the "imitation game". But I don't think that a machine must be intelligent in order to imitate a human; I mean, Eliza has fooled people into believing they were talking to a human being (of course, that says something about gullibility).
That said, I must add that I'm not being constructive here in that I can't propose an alternative to the Turing test. But we won't need such a test in some time to come, so that doesn't bother me much. Honestly, I think we're simply not up to the task of creating intelligence in the near future. First of all, we need to know more about our own minds work, before we can attempt to create anything that can be considered intelligent.
The fact that the Turing Test is probably still the only widely recognized test for artificial intelligence says more about our pathetic understanding of the nature of intelligence than the validity and usefulness of the test.
I agree wholeheartedly. But not only the test is crude and primitive, so are the programs designed to beat it! Has it never occured to anyone writing such programs that maybe we cannot simply regard language ability in isolation?
Language is merely a tool humans use in order to communicate. Motivation and meaning; i.e., why I say or write something, and what it refers to, go beyond language, but language cannot exist without them. An interesting read for anyone interested in the matter might be Meaning and speech acts.
[...] it was found that the computer game only stimulated activity in the parts of the brain associated with vision and movement.
In contrast, arithmetic stimulated brain activity in both the left and right hemispheres of the frontal lobe - the area of the brain most associated with learning, memory and emotion.
To me, it seems like they were so fascinated by the technology of being able to measure brain activity that they forgot to apply common sense to their results.
There's simply no way that playing video games, even of the most primitive kind, is better for your brain than "doing a simple, repetitive arithmetical exercise."
We were talking about information. Information is not property; property being defined as "something owned or possessed" (according to Merriam-Webster).
I own a CD. You take it, it is theft. You copy it, it isn't. One can not own sequences of bits and bytes. One can, however, pretend that they can be owned, and this is what we do in our present system of copyright.
This is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. But it seems to me that the current implementation of copyright is flawed; cf. the DCMA, the DeCSS case, Sklyarov, etc.
Why's everybody so concerned with ethicality and legality all of a sudden? What about efficacy? I'd think as long as the cure works and makes CodeRed go away, it is a good thing.
I'm suprised nobody has tried to write a kind of counter-worm as of yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Then IRE probably is for you. It's an open-source, cross-platform role-playing engine modelled after Ultima VI.
Development seems to be going on at a rather sluggish pace, but maybe someone would like to give the author a hand...
Tell that Dr Treister-Goren :-) I can only shake my head at Hal producing sentences like "ball now park"; where's the ball? Where's the park? Hal's only interfaces to the world are stdin and stdout, presumably. Hal's world consists of words, and nothing more; "ball" and "park" refer to objects that aren't part of his world. Doesn't make sense at all.
The Turing Test seeks to answer the question: "Can machines think?" It sets out to do this by playing the "imitation game". But I don't think that a machine must be intelligent in order to imitate a human; I mean, Eliza has fooled people into believing they were talking to a human being (of course, that says something about gullibility).
That said, I must add that I'm not being constructive here in that I can't propose an alternative to the Turing test. But we won't need such a test in some time to come, so that doesn't bother me much. Honestly, I think we're simply not up to the task of creating intelligence in the near future. First of all, we need to know more about our own minds work, before we can attempt to create anything that can be considered intelligent.
I agree wholeheartedly. But not only the test is crude and primitive, so are the programs designed to beat it! Has it never occured to anyone writing such programs that maybe we cannot simply regard language ability in isolation?
Language is merely a tool humans use in order to communicate. Motivation and meaning; i.e., why I say or write something, and what it refers to, go beyond language, but language cannot exist without them. An interesting read for anyone interested in the matter might be Meaning and speech acts.
To me, it seems like they were so fascinated by the technology of being able to measure brain activity that they forgot to apply common sense to their results.
There's simply no way that playing video games, even of the most primitive kind, is better for your brain than "doing a simple, repetitive arithmetical exercise."
The next revision will be called 2.4.10, of course :-)
And 2.5 hasn't even been started yet, so yes, it is way to early for 2.6
We were talking about information. Information is not property; property being defined as "something owned or possessed" (according to Merriam-Webster).
I own a CD. You take it, it is theft. You copy it, it isn't. One can not own sequences of bits and bytes. One can, however, pretend that they can be owned, and this is what we do in our present system of copyright. This is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. But it seems to me that the current implementation of copyright is flawed; cf. the DCMA, the DeCSS case, Sklyarov, etc.
Why's everybody so concerned with ethicality and legality all of a sudden? What about efficacy? I'd think as long as the cure works and makes CodeRed go away, it is a good thing.
I'm suprised nobody has tried to write a kind of counter-worm as of yet.