Text 4499, 106 rader
Skriven 2006-07-21 21:55:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4996.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <CtednYYnOMt_ylzZnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <hpjgb2t0q37gmofuis9ffk9vgergdua653@4ax.com>

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:nc8vb29meqilgk385nndnvui13ip7h8hbr@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:18:32 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:pdssb21ipo7pbhk8pk33rbtumq7o3ardd1@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:01:03 -0700, "Vorlonagent"
>>> <nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, I'm not so sure that the band and the computer are so 
>>>>>>> different,
>>>>>>> except insofar as bands are more sophisticated than today's 
>>>>>>> computers,
>>>>>>> which have the cognitive sophistication of insects (no snide remarks
>>>>>>> about rap, please). And I don't see any reason why the computer
>>>>>>> couldn't be given the same emotional drives as we have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At the moment, that's a statement far more composed of faith than 
>>>>>>fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> I very much disagree. It's composed of thought and observation. A
>>>>> toaster has emotions. Ask yourself what emotions are, and you'll reach
>>>>> the same conclusion I did.
>>>>
>>>>Don't I get a say in this?
>>>>
>>>>Toasters may have emotions but it'd take a technological shaman to find
>>>>them.
>>>
>>> Not if you look at emotions analytically and ask what they are, rather
>>> than approaching them from a subjective level -- I /feel/ this way,
>>> I'm flesh and blood, the toaster isn't, so I have something magical
>>> that the toaster doesn't.
>>>
>>> One way of looking at it is the Turing approach. Two teletypes, one
>>> with a man behind it, one a computer. If the computer reacts the same
>>> way as the man when you ask it whether it loves its daughter or insult
>>> its mother, you can't distinguish them.
>>
>>
>>I remember the old Eliza program (I even had the code), as well as a 
>>number
>>of others could be written in short order that could fool someone for a
>>short time into thinking there was someone on the other side.  That's
>>simulated intelligence, not real intelligence, and there is a huige
>>difference.  Extending that emotions
>>
>>Computers can't attribute meaning to anything.  The number 32 might be a
>>constant relating to the freezing point of water in Farenheit, the highest
>>index in an array of values, the red component in a color of s single 
>>pixel
>>displayed on a monitor, or the space between the words "Artificial
>>Intelligence."  The computer doesn't "know" or "care."  Instructions,
>>data...no meaning, just context.
>
> That's not quite true -- a computer can be programmed to understand
> context. More to the point, we now know how to make a neural net,
> which allows a computer to develop its own contextual understanding in
> the same way the brain does. So what we're dealing with now is
> practical quantitative limits and R&D. Computers just aren't fast
> enough yet to equal the processing power of the human brain. That will
> change with time.

No, a computer can be programmed to recognize context.  That's a *very* 
different thing than understanding context.

The computer doesn't "know" that the result that comes out of it's 
programming has any meaning.

Some of the examples (facial recognition, etc), while not trivial, are 
largely taking an existing sample and comparing critical points (distance 
between the eyes, length of nose, etc) and allowing for variations because 
of differing angles of the comparison image.  That's not intelligence.

The example in which the program came up with a third sentence from the 
previous two might be more interesting, but I'd have to know information 
before drawing any real conclusions.  I could image such a program making 
some wildly inconsistent sentences too.. but if the program actually 
understood the context, it would either "know" the subsequent sentence was 
incorrect or th elogic by which it actually was correct could be discerned. 
If the app were functioning at this level, it would be well known now rather 
than being years away.

I infer from the fact that they're still working omn it to mean they're 
modifying it to do a better job at  simulated intelligence rather that 
actual intelligence in an artificial construct.


Carl

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.
 -- Ken Olsen   President, Digital Equipment, 1977
                                                                               
          
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)