(no subject)

maru · 27 Jan 2005, 13:32 · from 2005-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: marudubshinki at gmail.com (maru)
Date: Thu Jan 27 13:32:17 2005
Subject: (urth) (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <016001c504b6$28d16e20$4c1e4b0a at vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <197.37356526.2f2aaa00 at aol.com>
	<016001c504b6$28d16e20$4c1e4b0a at vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <41F95DB1.3040800 at gmail.com>

This doesn't actually have anything to do with the issue, but I've 
always thought the true subtlety of the Turing test usually
goes unappreciated: What the Turing Test asserts is that there is no way 
to perform all the operations of intelligence,
in any way simpler and more mechanical than actual intelligence.  
Intelligence is incompressible, if you will. Or, intelligence
is defined extensionally, not intentionally.
Oh wait, I've thought of a point: Tool-using is a skill. Not 
intelligence in and of itself.  So, when you test AI, do you ask it to 
use a
inclined plane, pully and other bric-a-brac to prove its intelligence, 
or do you test its imaginativeness and other logical potential?

~Maru

James Wynn wrote:

>>I think in 1972 toolmaking was considered to be the defining
>>characteristic of Hom Sap. It was thought that tools cane first,
>>brains later. Not sure that that is still the case.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmmmm...I hadn't thought of the possible point Wolfe may be making about
>humanity and the ability to use tools. Is he asking whether the Annese's
>inability to use tools prevents them from being human regardless of how
>closely they mimic us?
>
>Is Wolfe taking on the Turing requirements for Artificial Intelligence [if a
>machine is convincingly human enough, then it is self-aware] and applying
>them to Biology?
>
>_______________________________________________
>Urth Mailing List
>To post, write urth at urth.net
>Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>  
>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net