Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Lars Kecke · Guest

Nam Nguyen schrieb:
[quote]|-|erc wrote:

By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.

A wishful thinking! How could we trust "smart" computers would
really care - and not plan to destroy - a species they>re not of?
[/quote]
To borrow Ian M. Banks>s argument, because humans are cute. They share a
common heritage with Minds and are so vastly inferior that they don>t
pose a threat. Besides, using them to re-create famous historical
battles is so much fun.

Lars

Occidental · Guest

On Jul 28, 10:11 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote]|-|erc wrote:
"Nam Nguyen" <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote

|-|erc wrote:

By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.

A wishful thinking! How could we trust "smart" computers would
really care - and not plan to destroy - a species they>re not of?

The takeover would be more subtle I think, nearly every desk job
could be done by computer. Unless you>re doing something physical
in your job an AI can do it. There would be entire cities of retrenched
people, just networks talking to each other in paperless humanless offices.

Herc

A machine cannot do wine tasting.
[/quote]
It may eventually become possible to duplicate the performance of an
expert wine taster by analyzing the constituents of wine and
correlating with wine expert evaluations. The system thus created
would not, of course, duplicate the underlying human ability to
distinguish esthetically by taste; it would be entirely mindless and
parasitic (likewise, most of what are referred to these days as
"robots" are not robots at all but remote-controlled machines entirely
dependent on human abilities).

The great AI accomplishment would be creating a machine that actually
had esthetic judgment. No one has the remotest clue how such a system
could be built, even in principle. The assumption among AI romantics
is that once we have enough computational power all these annoying
conceptual problems will go away, as though the hardware alone is what
matters, and the software will write itself, or the artificial neurons
will obligingly rearrange themselves into a configuration possessing
sentience.

[quote]
Bob Kolker[/quote]

Dave Seaman · Guest

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:11:58 -0400, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
[quote]|-|erc wrote:

"Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote

|-|erc wrote:

By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.

A wishful thinking! How could we trust "smart" computers would
really care - and not plan to destroy - a species they>re not of?

The takeover would be more subtle I think, nearly every desk job
could be done by computer. Unless you>re doing something physical
in your job an AI can do it. There would be entire cities of retrenched
people, just networks talking to each other in paperless humanless offices.

Herc

A machine cannot do wine tasting.

Bob Kolker
[/quote]
Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of whether a computer can
think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can
swim. The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort of
question to me.

--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php>

Occidental · Guest

On Jul 28, 2:44 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:11:58 -0400, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
|-|erc wrote:
"Nam Nguyen" <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote

|-|erc wrote:

By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.

A wishful thinking! How could we trust "smart" computers would
really care - and not plan to destroy - a species they>re not of?

The takeover would be more subtle I think, nearly every desk job
could be done by computer. Unless you>re doing something physical
in your job an AI can do it. There would be entire cities of retrenched
people, just networks talking to each other in paperless humanless offices.

Herc

A machine cannot do wine tasting.
Bob Kolker

Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of whether a computer can
think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can
swim. The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort of
question to me.
[/quote]
Bertrand Russell>s Ten Commandments

5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always
contrary authorities to be found.

[quote]--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php[/quote]

Robert J. Kolker · Guest

|-|erc wrote:

[quote]"Nam Nguyen" <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> wrote

|-|erc wrote:

By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.

A wishful thinking! How could we trust "smart" computers would
really care - and not plan to destroy - a species they>re not of?

The takeover would be more subtle I think, nearly every desk job
could be done by computer. Unless you>re doing something physical
in your job an AI can do it. There would be entire cities of retrenched
people, just networks talking to each other in paperless humanless offices.

Herc

A machine cannot do wine tasting.[/quote]

Bob Kolker

Dave Seaman · Guest

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:52:34 -0700 (PDT), Occidental wrote:
[quote]On Jul 28, 2:44 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:11:58 -0400, Robert J. Kolker wrote:
|-|erc wrote:
"Nam Nguyen" <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote

|-|erc wrote:

By 2040 smart computers will develop a cure for cancer and
a virus that will halt the aging process, immortality for those
who can afford it.

A wishful thinking! How could we trust "smart" computers would
really care - and not plan to destroy - a species they>re not of?

The takeover would be more subtle I think, nearly every desk job
could be done by computer. Unless you>re doing something physical
in your job an AI can do it. There would be entire cities of retrenched
people, just networks talking to each other in paperless humanless offices.

Herc

A machine cannot do wine tasting.
Bob Kolker

Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of whether a computer can
think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can
swim. The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort of
question to me.

Bertrand Russell>s Ten Commandments

5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always
contrary authorities to be found.
[/quote]
Your point?

Dijkstra did not comment about wine tasting. That was my personal
statement. My only reason for mentioning Dijkstra was to provide some
context for the comparison. If you want to take issue with what I said,
you need to provide a counterargument. In what way does wine tasting
differ from the other examples mentioned?

Note that this is not in any way a question about Dijkstra or about
authority.

--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php>

Occidental · Guest

Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
[quote]Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of whether a computer can
think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can
swim. The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort of
question to me.

Occidental wrote:
Bertrand Russell>s Ten Commandments
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always
contrary authorities to be found.
[/quote]
Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
[quote]Your point?

Dijkstra did not comment about wine tasting. That was my personal
statement. My only reason for mentioning Dijkstra was to provide some
context for the comparison. If you want to take issue with what I said,
you need to provide a counterargument.
[/quote]
Sorry to have to break this to you, but you don>t have an argument to
counter. "The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort
of question to me." is a statement about how the wine-tasting question
looks to you, not an argument. An argument is a connected series of
statements intended to establish a proposition. It is more, much more,
than merely saying that such and such "seems to me" to have a certain
quality or property.

[quote]In what way does wine tasting
differ from the other examples mentioned?
[/quote]
Sorry, not falling for that one, the burden of proof is on you.

[quote]Note that this is not in any way a question about Dijkstra or about
authority.
[/quote]
Sure it is; that>s what you made it.

Dave Seaman · Guest

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Occidental wrote:
[quote]Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of whether a computer can
think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can
swim. The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort of
question to me.

Occidental wrote:
Bertrand Russell>s Ten Commandments
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always
contrary authorities to be found.

Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
Your point?

Dijkstra did not comment about wine tasting. That was my personal
statement. My only reason for mentioning Dijkstra was to provide some
context for the comparison. If you want to take issue with what I said,
you need to provide a counterargument.

Sorry to have to break this to you, but you don>t have an argument to
counter. "The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort
of question to me." is a statement about how the wine-tasting question
looks to you, not an argument. An argument is a connected series of
statements intended to establish a proposition. It is more, much more,
than merely saying that such and such "seems to me" to have a certain
quality or property.
[/quote]
My argument is that a machine can perform a chemical analysis of wine.
It>s basically an exercise in artificial intelligence.

[quote]In what way does wine tasting
differ from the other examples mentioned?

Sorry, not falling for that one, the burden of proof is on you.
[/quote]
Your turn.

[quote]Note that this is not in any way a question about Dijkstra or about
authority.

Sure it is; that>s what you made it.
[/quote]
I did no such thing. Delete the mention of Dijkstra, and my question
remains.

--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php>

Occidental · Guest

On Jul 28, 4:39 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Occidental wrote:
Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of whether a computer can
think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can
swim. The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort of
question to me.
Occidental wrote:
Bertrand Russell>s Ten Commandments
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always
contrary authorities to be found.
Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
Your point?
Dijkstra did not comment about wine tasting. That was my personal
statement. My only reason for mentioning Dijkstra was to provide some
context for the comparison. If you want to take issue with what I said,
you need to provide a counterargument.
Sorry to have to break this to you, but you don>t have an argument to
counter. "The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort
of question to me." is a statement about how the wine-tasting question
looks to you, not an argument. An argument is a connected series of
statements intended to establish a proposition. It is more, much more,
than merely saying that such and such "seems to me" to have a certain
quality or property.

My argument is that a machine can perform a chemical analysis of wine.
It>s basically an exercise in artificial intelligence.
[/quote]
You didn>t say that, did you?

[quote]In what way does wine tasting
differ from the other examples mentioned?
Sorry, not falling for that one, the burden of proof is on you.

Your turn.
[/quote]
No need, I agree, and in an earlier post I said as much:

"It may eventually become possible to duplicate the performance of an
expert wine taster by analyzing the constituents of wine and
correlating with wine expert evaluations. The system thus created
would not, of course, duplicate the underlying human ability to
distinguish esthetically by taste; it would be entirely mindless and
parasitic"

[quote]Note that this is not in any way a question about Dijkstra or about
authority.
Sure it is; that>s what you made it.

I did no such thing. Delete the mention of Dijkstra, and my question
remains.

--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php[/quote]

Occidental · Guest

On Jul 28, 2:44 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
[quote]Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of
whether a computer can think is no more interesting
than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
[/quote]
hmmmmmm. This POV has been more or less refuted by Searle>s Chinese
Room Thought Experiment, no?

QUOTE, wiki
Chinese room thought experiment

Searle asks his audience to imagine that many years from now, people
have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese.
The computer takes Chinese characters as input and, following a
program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as
output. Suppose that this computer performs this task so convincingly
that it easily passes the Turing test. In other words, it convinces a
human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese
speaker. All the questions the human asks are responded to
appropriately, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or
she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human. The conclusion that
proponents of artificial intelligence would like to draw is that the
computer understands Chinese, just as the person does.

Now, Searle asks the audience to suppose that he is in a room in which
he receives Chinese characters, consults a book containing an English
version of the computer program, and processes the Chinese characters
according to the instructions in the book. Searle notes that he does
not understand a word of Chinese. He simply manipulates what to him
are meaningless squiggles, using the book and whatever other equipment
is provided in the room, such as paper, pencils, erasers, and filing
cabinets. After manipulating the symbols, Searle will produce the
answer in Chinese. Since the computer passed the Turing test, so does
Searle running its program by hand: "Nobody just looking at my answers
can tell that I don>t speak a word of Chinese," Searle writes.[1]

Searle argues that his lack of understanding goes to show that
computers do not understand Chinese either, because they are in the
same situation as he is. They are mindless manipulators of symbols,
just as he is. They don>t understand what they>re "saying", just as he
doesn>t. Since they do not have conscious mental states like
"understanding", they can not properly be said to have minds.
END QUOTE

Dave Seaman · Guest

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:50:27 -0700 (PDT), Occidental wrote:
[quote]On Jul 28, 4:39 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Occidental wrote:
Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of whether a computer can
think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can
swim. The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort of
question to me.
Occidental wrote:
Bertrand Russell>s Ten Commandments
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always
contrary authorities to be found.
Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
Your point?
Dijkstra did not comment about wine tasting. That was my personal
statement. My only reason for mentioning Dijkstra was to provide some
context for the comparison. If you want to take issue with what I said,
you need to provide a counterargument.
Sorry to have to break this to you, but you don>t have an argument to
counter. "The wine-tasting question looks like exactly the same sort
of question to me." is a statement about how the wine-tasting question
looks to you, not an argument. An argument is a connected series of
statements intended to establish a proposition. It is more, much more,
than merely saying that such and such "seems to me" to have a certain
quality or property.

My argument is that a machine can perform a chemical analysis of wine.
It>s basically an exercise in artificial intelligence.

You didn>t say that, did you?
[/quote]
I thought it was implicit. My point was, there is no use getting bogged
down in arguments over whether performing a chemical analysis can be
compared with what a human does in tasting wine. If a machine can pass a
modified Turing test in which the subjects are asked to evaluate samples
of wine, then for all practical purposes, the machine is a capable
wine-taster.

[quote]In what way does wine tasting
differ from the other examples mentioned?
Sorry, not falling for that one, the burden of proof is on you.

Your turn.

No need, I agree, and in an earlier post I said as much:

"It may eventually become possible to duplicate the performance of an
expert wine taster by analyzing the constituents of wine and
correlating with wine expert evaluations. The system thus created
would not, of course, duplicate the underlying human ability to
distinguish esthetically by taste; it would be entirely mindless and
parasitic"
[/quote]
Yes, and I saw that before my first posting. I didn>t think it was
necessary to repeat it, since I had already advanced beyond that to the
next logical step.

[quote]Note that this is not in any way a question about Dijkstra or about
authority.
Sure it is; that>s what you made it.

I did no such thing. Delete the mention of Dijkstra, and my question
remains.
[/quote]
I suppose next you will fault me for mentioning Turing.

--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php>

Dave Seaman · Guest

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:58:37 +0200, Herman Jurjus wrote:
[quote]Dave Seaman wrote:
Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of whether a computer can
think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can
swim.

Do you happen to have a reference?
[/quote]
Google. I found it without knowing the author. You have an extra
advantage.

--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php>

Dave Seaman · Guest

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Occidental wrote:
[quote]On Jul 28, 2:44 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of
whether a computer can think is no more interesting
than the question of whether a submarine can swim.

hmmmmmm. This POV has been more or less refuted by Searle>s Chinese
Room Thought Experiment, no?
[/quote]
Not at all. I am not about to launch into a discussion of Searle. Let>s
just say I don>t accept his conclusions, and my reasons have been stated
by others.

--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php>

Occidental · Guest

On Jul 28, 5:51 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Occidental wrote:
On Jul 28, 2:44 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of
whether a computer can think is no more interesting
than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
hmmmmmm. This POV has been more or less refuted by Searle>s Chinese
Room Thought Experiment, no?

Not at all. I am not about to launch into a discussion of Searle. Let>s
just say I don>t accept his conclusions, and my reasons have been stated
by others.
[/quote]
Who?

[quote]
--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php[/quote]

Dave Seaman · Guest

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:59:10 -0700 (PDT), Occidental wrote:
[quote]On Jul 28, 5:51 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:05:17 -0700 (PDT), Occidental wrote:
On Jul 28, 2:44 pm, Dave Seaman <dsea...@no.such.host> wrote:
Edsger Dijkstra once remarked that the question of
whether a computer can think is no more interesting
than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
hmmmmmm. This POV has been more or less refuted by Searle>s Chinese
Room Thought Experiment, no?

Not at all. I am not about to launch into a discussion of Searle. Let>s
just say I don>t accept his conclusions, and my reasons have been stated
by others.

Who?
[/quote]
I told you, I am not going to discuss Searle. I don>t consider it a
useful discussion. If you read what I said elsethread, it is useless to
argue over whether performing a chemical analysis is comparable to what a
human does in tasting wine. By the same token, it is useless to argue
over whether what a man/machine combination does in reading and answering
questions in Chinese is comparable to what a native speaker of Chinese
does.

--
Dave Seaman
Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php>


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Logic Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 3 of 6