Turing-type tests are sufficient to say "this system is definitely not intelligent" (like all those silly chat-bots), but can never determine that an AI is intelligent.
After all, the system may always fail the next test.
In addition, smart Human beings can do a few things that neural networks cannot and will never be able to due to fundamental limitations.
You've made this claim dozens of times in other forums, yet you never seem to be able to define what these "fundamental limitations" are.
Truth is, the existence of such limitations is an article of faith for you. Without that, your whole precious-snowflake image of yourself would collapse. You're a machine. Face it.
When AI becomes indistinguishable from human intelligence in every way, will you still be squawking that it's "just a well-tuned set of heuristics"?
Yes, they will. Eventually they will die and future generations will grow up simply accepting that these machines are sentient, and the whole question will seem quaint and silly.
I don't know, do you?
Can you prove you do?
Can you prove that I do or don't?
Of course not. Nobody can determine if another entity is self aware or not, making the whole question moot and ultimately pointless. And no, your bald assertions about such things proves absolutely nothing.
And if you think your "ideas" mocking or belittling a paper like this one have any kind of intellectual merit you are wrong. One of the principal authors in multiple citations in the paper is a distinguished anthropology professor at the University of British Columbia who was awarded the Order of Canada several years ago.
As a Canadian and U.B.C. grad, I find this deeply embarrassing.
Peirce integrates into the sign the necessity of its interpretation. That is, for Peirce, it makes no sense to conceptualize the sign without including in that conceptualization its interpretation.
All very nice and fascinating bit of pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. However, the aforementioned "research" was funded by the National Science Foundation, who should not be throwing away science funding on what is basically a philosophical essay by someone without the slightest understanding of what science is about.
Slashdot Mirror
Turing-type tests are sufficient to say "this system is definitely not intelligent" (like all those silly chat-bots),
but can never determine that an AI is intelligent.
After all, the system may always fail the next test.
Well, maybe we just need millions of small to medium sized breakthroughs.
"intuition" is probably the wrong word for that. More like learning what parts of a pattern are important and what parts aren't,
Isn't that exactly what "intuition" is?
Shouldn't that be 2525?
"Insight" is a key requirement for intelligence
A term that neither you, nor anyone else, has been able to define.
Mystical bullshit and completely uninformed about the facts. Pathetic.
I'm glad you have admitted this about your beliefs.
Acceptance is the first step toward realization.
In addition, smart Human beings can do a few things that neural networks cannot and will never be able to due to fundamental limitations.
You've made this claim dozens of times in other forums, yet you never seem to be able to define what these "fundamental limitations" are.
Truth is, the existence of such limitations is an article of faith for you. Without that, your whole precious-snowflake image of yourself would collapse.
You're a machine. Face it.
When AI becomes indistinguishable from human intelligence in every way, will you still be squawking that it's "just a well-tuned set of heuristics"?
Yes, they will.
Eventually they will die and future generations will grow up simply accepting that these machines are sentient, and the whole question will seem quaint and silly.
And do do I have self-awareness?
I don't know, do you? Can you prove you do?
Can you prove that I do or don't?
Of course not. Nobody can determine if another entity is self aware or not, making the whole question moot and ultimately pointless.
And no, your bald assertions about such things proves absolutely nothing.
And if you think your "ideas" mocking or belittling a paper like this one have any kind of intellectual merit you are wrong.
One of the principal authors in multiple citations in the paper is a distinguished anthropology professor at the University of British Columbia who was awarded the Order of Canada several years ago.
As a Canadian and U.B.C. grad, I find this deeply embarrassing.
Peirce integrates into the sign the necessity of its interpretation. That is, for Peirce, it makes no sense to conceptualize the sign without including in that conceptualization its interpretation.
All very nice and fascinating bit of pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo.
However, the aforementioned "research" was funded by the National Science Foundation, who should not be throwing away science funding
on what is basically a philosophical essay by someone without the slightest understanding of what science is about.
No, Carey is her thesis supervisor.
No it isn't: https://around.uoregon.edu/content/glaciers-melt-more-voices-research-are-needed.
Congratulations on your flying carpet!
Or let Hillary anywhere near it.
Unlike you, who is ignorant and insane.
Not if you're about to become a lamb steak anyway.
And they shouldn't be allowed to do that?
No, they shouldn't.
They must be allowed to publically disagree with those having opposing views, but not stamp down on them.
I feel they trying to tell me what I should think about the event they reference, rather than tell me about the events themselves
That's called an "editorial'.
Do you have stairs in your house?
Was anybody else waiting for the bot to smack that cunt with the hockey stick?
against unreasonable searches and seizures
One of the vaguest words in the English language.
My bone structure is three times larger than my mother's and twice as large as my father's.
Bone structure and fatness have nothing to do with each other.
And you gain weight by burning more calories
Any citations to support that?
That's OK.
Swimming burns lots of calories.