Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Preventing artificial intelligence from taking on negative human traits.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="J_B_" data-source="post: 75942869" data-attributes="member: 428251"><p>I can accept that - calling these chess programs "powerful in their domain ... but not fully intelligent."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't quite accept this. Not quite, because you've never offered a definition of intelligence. You're simply declaring speed should be included even though the definition I referenced didn't include it.</p><p></p><p>To me intelligence is more nuanced, and I'm not convinced it can be separated from sentience or creativity for that matter. As I've mentioned, I consider myself a deep thinker rather than a quick thinker, and it's served me well. My employers have valued my engineering solutions over many others even though I often appear to be staring blankly into space ... because I'm in deep thought, not producing quick answers.</p><p></p><p>I consider some of my younger colleagues smarter than me, but I can still outperform them - not because of intelligence but because of my experience. I don't consider my ability to recall and apply a lengthy list of experiences to be intelligence. It is simply memory - short & sweet - the application of those memories sometimes misinterpreted by the uninitiated as intelligence.</p><p></p><p>In that regard, I'm modifying your phrase of "powerful in its domain" to say I might be able to accept speed as a contributing aspect to intelligence, but not sufficient in and of itself. An algorithm that wins on speed alone is not intelligent. A smart machine that solves a problem quicker, I could accept as smarter, but intelligence independent of speed would be a precursor. A machine following an algorithm devised by others is not intelligent, even if the algorithm is adaptive, because the adaptivity is part of the algorithm, not something the machine innovated. It would be like saying giraffes are clever because they evolved a long neck. Um. No.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The ability of games with simple rules like GO to become extremely complex is fascinating. I don't disparage the game or those who play it. But for a computer running an algorithm written by humans to devise "novel" strategies is not the type of novelty I meant. Those algorithms still only make the moves they are programmed to make. A truly novel move by a computer would be a decision to cheat. It might be immoral, but it would definitely be innovative - to make a move it was never told was a possible move.</p><p></p><p>People know, when playing GO, that physical law allows you to place your piece ANYWHERE on the board. It is only mutually agreed rules that restrict your play to open spaces. The board gets too complex to remember where all the pieces are, a little misdirection and slight of hand to move an opponent's piece and replace it with yours ... you "win" (though not really & not honorably).</p><p></p><p>Would any GO algorithm attempt such a thing? I think not. I would bet they are all restricted to fair play. A human would have to decide to add that option, and therefore it is the human demonstrating the intelligence, not the machine. The machine is simply "powerful within its domain."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J_B_, post: 75942869, member: 428251"] I can accept that - calling these chess programs "powerful in their domain ... but not fully intelligent." I can't quite accept this. Not quite, because you've never offered a definition of intelligence. You're simply declaring speed should be included even though the definition I referenced didn't include it. To me intelligence is more nuanced, and I'm not convinced it can be separated from sentience or creativity for that matter. As I've mentioned, I consider myself a deep thinker rather than a quick thinker, and it's served me well. My employers have valued my engineering solutions over many others even though I often appear to be staring blankly into space ... because I'm in deep thought, not producing quick answers. I consider some of my younger colleagues smarter than me, but I can still outperform them - not because of intelligence but because of my experience. I don't consider my ability to recall and apply a lengthy list of experiences to be intelligence. It is simply memory - short & sweet - the application of those memories sometimes misinterpreted by the uninitiated as intelligence. In that regard, I'm modifying your phrase of "powerful in its domain" to say I might be able to accept speed as a contributing aspect to intelligence, but not sufficient in and of itself. An algorithm that wins on speed alone is not intelligent. A smart machine that solves a problem quicker, I could accept as smarter, but intelligence independent of speed would be a precursor. A machine following an algorithm devised by others is not intelligent, even if the algorithm is adaptive, because the adaptivity is part of the algorithm, not something the machine innovated. It would be like saying giraffes are clever because they evolved a long neck. Um. No. The ability of games with simple rules like GO to become extremely complex is fascinating. I don't disparage the game or those who play it. But for a computer running an algorithm written by humans to devise "novel" strategies is not the type of novelty I meant. Those algorithms still only make the moves they are programmed to make. A truly novel move by a computer would be a decision to cheat. It might be immoral, but it would definitely be innovative - to make a move it was never told was a possible move. People know, when playing GO, that physical law allows you to place your piece ANYWHERE on the board. It is only mutually agreed rules that restrict your play to open spaces. The board gets too complex to remember where all the pieces are, a little misdirection and slight of hand to move an opponent's piece and replace it with yours ... you "win" (though not really & not honorably). Would any GO algorithm attempt such a thing? I think not. I would bet they are all restricted to fair play. A human would have to decide to add that option, and therefore it is the human demonstrating the intelligence, not the machine. The machine is simply "powerful within its domain." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Preventing artificial intelligence from taking on negative human traits.
Top
Bottom