You, um, seem to be implying that blind people cannot use language.
You may want to seriously reconsider that.
Yes, when we use words, we're using a symbol to stand for the meaning. This is obvious.
However, we can in fact use words we don't understand, and we can extract some sense of understanding from the way it's used.
Consider the concept of, oh, "semantic". This has little-to-no basis in physical reality, and yet is perfectly understandable all around.
An AI, even without physical interactions, could understand such concepts.
And a physical interaction is a vague concept when it comes to an AI; George Lakoff suggests we understand things via metaphor of a very few basic concepts; the directions (up/down/left/right/forward/back) being one of them.
As a result, we sometimes understand the concept of "more" via analogy from "up".
Why could a computer not go the other way? It is not at all difficult for a computer to get the idea of more; why not have a vague idea of what "up" means to us from that?
Obviously this is beyond what is done now, but it does tend to imply that there are methods other than direct physical experience to produce an understanding of the same concepts we get from such experiences. And as AI is geared towards achieving that understanding, even if it would likely not be the most appropriate "intelligence" (such a VAGUE word, sometimes) for a computer, it's still something we will likely end up with.
"So I go left?"
"Right."
Ambiguity; I've had this happen while driving moderately frequently. Body language isn't a help, since I'm, well, looking at the/road/.
It's easy enough to disambiguate afterwards, but if I were driving a military vehicle in a combat situation, that could easily get one of us killed, yes.
I'd think that it's nigh-certain that they'll result in local alterations of climactic patterns (more precipitation right around the windmills, less a little bit away...), but anything else seems like pure FUD, yes.
The price of any specific portion of real estate can go down, however.
Buy land next to a chemical plant and watch how your property values don't go up.
Land values drop any and every time there is a significant negative change in the area, and global warming would easily constitute that.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably, although I wouldn't know.
;)
Of course, if the superior is the person giving directions, and not the driver, that may not help.
But... well, yes, and that brings it back to what Moonfog said.
You, um, seem to be implying that blind people cannot use language.
You may want to seriously reconsider that.
Yes, when we use words, we're using a symbol to stand for the meaning. This is obvious.
However, we can in fact use words we don't understand, and we can extract some sense of understanding from the way it's used.
Consider the concept of, oh, "semantic". This has little-to-no basis in physical reality, and yet is perfectly understandable all around.
An AI, even without physical interactions, could understand such concepts.
And a physical interaction is a vague concept when it comes to an AI; George Lakoff suggests we understand things via metaphor of a very few basic concepts; the directions (up/down/left/right/forward/back) being one of them.
As a result, we sometimes understand the concept of "more" via analogy from "up".
Why could a computer not go the other way? It is not at all difficult for a computer to get the idea of more; why not have a vague idea of what "up" means to us from that?
Obviously this is beyond what is done now, but it does tend to imply that there are methods other than direct physical experience to produce an understanding of the same concepts we get from such experiences. And as AI is geared towards achieving that understanding, even if it would likely not be the most appropriate "intelligence" (such a VAGUE word, sometimes) for a computer, it's still something we will likely end up with.
"So I go left?" "Right." Ambiguity; I've had this happen while driving moderately frequently. Body language isn't a help, since I'm, well, looking at the /road/.
It's easy enough to disambiguate afterwards, but if I were driving a military vehicle in a combat situation, that could easily get one of us killed, yes.
I'd think that it's nigh-certain that they'll result in local alterations of climactic patterns (more precipitation right around the windmills, less a little bit away...), but anything else seems like pure FUD, yes.
The price of any specific portion of real estate can go down, however. Buy land next to a chemical plant and watch how your property values don't go up. Land values drop any and every time there is a significant negative change in the area, and global warming would easily constitute that.
Remember Creationism and "Intelligent Design"? This is the precise same tactic, and there's no secrecy about that fact whatsoever.