I've always been very interested in this whole 'education is getting easier' thing. In the UK at least, the overall exam results seem to be getting higher each year - this leads to the inevitable accusations that the exams are getting easier. It makes sense - why would classes get collectively more intelligent year on year?
The Flynn Effect has been observed -- where IQ has been on the rise as a collective whole.
I love this comment, because it essentially demonstrates how diplomatic people don't necessarily do the "right" thing, or things that are lawful or even justified. They're occupied with only satisfying both sides; holding the strings together.
Now, if a professor were to mark down a student for expressing a different view (assuming they were able to defend their reasoning), that would be beyond the pale.
Isn't this issue less clear cut than you make it out to be?
Differences in opinions about matters, or general divides in philosophies (conservative vs liberal, dualist vs materialist, anarchist vs fascist) many of the times operate on deep-lying axioms which the other view does not possess.
Say Peter is a moral nihilist, and Professor M is the average joe (with basically a Kantian inclination -- which [simplified] utilizes a form of Jesus' golden rule). Peter could write about how massacres are really just environmental tools and a matter of statistics, while it would not be difficult to see that Prof M would be horrified. It would be difficult to see how M could see Peter's view as being defensible, or accept Peter's unique set of axioms. Maybe it's possible, but more often than not even well defended arguments can be marked down simply because they stem from a "faulty" axiom.
"After all, Dr Ellerman concedes that their may be no way of distinguishing minds from machines purely on the basis of behavior."
"It seems that Dr Ellerman's essay considers two different types of physical devices that are potentially indistinguishable on the basis
of behavior.
This is the important thing:
This is the essence of the TURING TEST.
I've argued that the Turing Test lies under the great umbrella of "behavioral" tests. I mean that in the general sense; where one infers innate qualities from perceived external actions. If Peter can answer difficult mathematical questions, we infer that Peter is adept at math. As such, if X appears to be conscious/intelligent, we infer that X *really* is conscious or intelligent. And that is how the Turing Test really works.
John Searle's "Chinese Room" argument merely demonstrates this idea by showing how a purely syntactical machine can SIMULATE intelligent behavior without any conscious activity or awareness as to what is being done at all. This is why the Chinese Room argument is so famous.
I don't think the reviewer has demonstrated adequate mastery of the subject (artificial intelligence) and its present studies. For example, the problem of assigning meaning to symbols is a BIG one, and the defining of computers as symbol manipulators is NOT arbitrary. This problem first arose when Thomas Hobbes talked of the mind as a symbol manipulator and Descartes rubbished his argument, pointing out the problem of Original Meaning (how symbols come to indicate this or that in the first place).
Computers as symbol manipulators is also an idea that arose from John Searle's "Chinese Room argument". Perhaps one of the best contemporary discussions is by John Haugeland in his book "Ariticial Intelligence: The Very Idea".
Overall, a seemingly immature review of the book. Disappointing.
It's an individual accomplishment, and perhaps he discovered this himself. If you discovered an algorithm, made an invention, or such by virtue of your own intellect and effort, wouldn't you think it were nice? And that you wanted to share it?
Just ease up a little. Don't be so picky about prior art. ; )
What about FOREIGN STUDENTS?
There are plenty of chinese here in Toronto who stick to their cliques and all. Most of them can't speak english very well, since they converse regularly in their mother tongue and don't practice english that often. Granted, there are a few who are different (and are often in the sciences).. let no one take this as discrimination on my part, I am a foreign student myself.
But these students do frequently have gaming habits, and I wouldn't be suprised if they played WoW on Canada's local servers.
John Haugeland has a reply to your concern:
Without human intelligence as a barometer, without a measuring base, we are completely without direction. We cannot ascertain what is and what is not intelligent. While assuming that the human model of intelligence is "chauvinistic" (which in turn led to multiple realizability), this model is pretty much all we have now. We need it.
The "statistical" machine you talk about has already been quite thoroughly discussed in philosophy/current AI -- see John Searle's "Chinese Room". It is merely a syntactical machine without any *real* intelligence. Being able to simulate intelligent behavior is categorically different from being intelligent.
The mystery of AI still rages on, with one of the most significant problems being the "frame problem" (see Daniel Dennett). If AskG can deal with this problem, then we're on our way to strong AI.
[i]I don't feel that time spent sleeping is wasted, as a programmer I often that I've solved problems during sleep.[/i]
This is due to unconscious "System 1" (as termed by Keith E. Stanvovich & Richard West) procedures that keep on working on the problem after you've stopped paying attention to it. The same thing happens when you see someone whose name you can't remember, and then minutes or hours later, you suddenly recall the person's name. Your unconscious system has been working on the name all the while..
This fact is always overlooked by many people, who keep desperately working on a problem they can't solve. Prominent mathematicians and physicists have solved problems this way in their sleep or rest. It is furthermore important to know that the unconscious processes probably take place only when you do non-intensive work after your problem.. that is, after you stop working on the then-unsolvable problem, you do some "light" work. Don't go trying to solve *another* problem, or do things that require alot of attention.
Won't this affect the growth and the health of trees, if anything? There has to be an energy payoff somewhere, and if this "energy tapping" from trees is harmful to the trees, a mass degeneration of various ecological systems is possible.
On the other hand, I know everyone is wishing MacGuyver was still running..;)
Slashdot Mirror
I've always been very interested in this whole 'education is getting easier' thing. In the UK at least, the overall exam results seem to be getting higher each year - this leads to the inevitable accusations that the exams are getting easier. It makes sense - why would classes get collectively more intelligent year on year? The Flynn Effect has been observed -- where IQ has been on the rise as a collective whole.
I love this comment, because it essentially demonstrates how diplomatic people don't necessarily do the "right" thing, or things that are lawful or even justified. They're occupied with only satisfying both sides; holding the strings together.
Isn't this issue less clear cut than you make it out to be?
Differences in opinions about matters, or general divides in philosophies (conservative vs liberal, dualist vs materialist, anarchist vs fascist) many of the times operate on deep-lying axioms which the other view does not possess.
Say Peter is a moral nihilist, and Professor M is the average joe (with basically a Kantian inclination -- which [simplified] utilizes a form of Jesus' golden rule). Peter could write about how massacres are really just environmental tools and a matter of statistics, while it would not be difficult to see that Prof M would be horrified. It would be difficult to see how M could see Peter's view as being defensible, or accept Peter's unique set of axioms. Maybe it's possible, but more often than not even well defended arguments can be marked down simply because they stem from a "faulty" axiom.
"It seems that Dr Ellerman's essay considers two different types of physical devices that are potentially indistinguishable on the basis of behavior.
This is the important thing:
This is the essence of the TURING TEST.
I've argued that the Turing Test lies under the great umbrella of "behavioral" tests. I mean that in the general sense; where one infers innate qualities from perceived external actions. If Peter can answer difficult mathematical questions, we infer that Peter is adept at math. As such, if X appears to be conscious/intelligent, we infer that X *really* is conscious or intelligent. And that is how the Turing Test really works.
John Searle's "Chinese Room" argument merely demonstrates this idea by showing how a purely syntactical machine can SIMULATE intelligent behavior without any conscious activity or awareness as to what is being done at all. This is why the Chinese Room argument is so famous.
Computers as symbol manipulators is also an idea that arose from John Searle's "Chinese Room argument". Perhaps one of the best contemporary discussions is by John Haugeland in his book "Ariticial Intelligence: The Very Idea".
Overall, a seemingly immature review of the book. Disappointing.
It's an individual accomplishment, and perhaps he discovered this himself. If you discovered an algorithm, made an invention, or such by virtue of your own intellect and effort, wouldn't you think it were nice? And that you wanted to share it?
Just ease up a little. Don't be so picky about prior art. ; )
What about FOREIGN STUDENTS? There are plenty of chinese here in Toronto who stick to their cliques and all. Most of them can't speak english very well, since they converse regularly in their mother tongue and don't practice english that often. Granted, there are a few who are different (and are often in the sciences).. let no one take this as discrimination on my part, I am a foreign student myself. But these students do frequently have gaming habits, and I wouldn't be suprised if they played WoW on Canada's local servers.
John Haugeland has a reply to your concern: Without human intelligence as a barometer, without a measuring base, we are completely without direction. We cannot ascertain what is and what is not intelligent. While assuming that the human model of intelligence is "chauvinistic" (which in turn led to multiple realizability), this model is pretty much all we have now. We need it.
The mystery of AI still rages on, with one of the most significant problems being the "frame problem" (see Daniel Dennett). If AskG can deal with this problem, then we're on our way to strong AI.
[i]I don't feel that time spent sleeping is wasted, as a programmer I often that I've solved problems during sleep.[/i] This is due to unconscious "System 1" (as termed by Keith E. Stanvovich & Richard West) procedures that keep on working on the problem after you've stopped paying attention to it. The same thing happens when you see someone whose name you can't remember, and then minutes or hours later, you suddenly recall the person's name. Your unconscious system has been working on the name all the while.. This fact is always overlooked by many people, who keep desperately working on a problem they can't solve. Prominent mathematicians and physicists have solved problems this way in their sleep or rest. It is furthermore important to know that the unconscious processes probably take place only when you do non-intensive work after your problem.. that is, after you stop working on the then-unsolvable problem, you do some "light" work. Don't go trying to solve *another* problem, or do things that require alot of attention.
Won't this affect the growth and the health of trees, if anything? There has to be an energy payoff somewhere, and if this "energy tapping" from trees is harmful to the trees, a mass degeneration of various ecological systems is possible. On the other hand, I know everyone is wishing MacGuyver was still running.. ;)