| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
| Is 'strong' AI possible, or not? |
| Yes |
|
100% |
[ 4 ] |
| No |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Maybe, but we shouldn't try |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Maybe, and we should definately pursue it |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 4 |
MoonDragon
High Emperor
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 1254
Location: Waterloo, Canada |
| Chinese Room counter-argument |
|
Some of you may be familiar with it. If not, I would heartily recommend you read it as an exemplary case of awsome philosophical argumentation. You can find the original here.
This thought experiment has been a thorn in many a philosopher's side and I have not yet come across a good refutation (doesn't mean that there isn't one, just that I haven't found one). Here's my attempt at refutation. See what you think: input is always welcome.
So, which side of the fence are you sitting on? 
_________________
(@) |
Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:27 pm |
|
|
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
Both are interesting reads. I have trouble believing the first paper, he draws some conclusions off of his gedankenexperiment that seem stretched, and some comparisons/assumptions I personally feel are flawed in the first place.
As for the question of Strong AI. I voted yes, I do believe it is possible. Certainly not right now, but probably soon. It will probably entail more than just software applied to our current computers, but a significant hardware/software meld. The reason I believe it is possible is because we ourselves exist and are thinking/reasoning beings. To constrain this to a purely human physiological phenomenon is I suppose a personal preference, but one I don't subscribe to.
As for should we persue it? I don't think that will end up being an issue. It will be persued whether it is a good idea or not, at least by someone and eventually they will be successful.
-vaticide
I apologize for my broken thought-train; I have been writing this during slow periods all morning while working. |
|
Fri Jul 11, 2003 5:08 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
And yet *another* thread I tought deserved life ...
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:09 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Talk about a difficult read!! I see why a year and a half went by without any responses to this thread. Still, you obviously think that it raises ideas worthy of discussion, and thus you made a blatant attempt to breathe life into the thread. So, in the words of that great hero, Samurai Jack, I will help you.
What this thread needs most is some simplification. It was a difficult read so I may not be perfectly correct in my interpretation of the meat of the two papers, but I will try to explain it in simple terms.
OVERALL ARGUMENT: Can artificial intelligence (AI) be recreated in a computer?
They differentiate between the two types of AI. Weak AI, which is AI that is simply a complex tool for true intelligence. The other is Strong AI, which is a separate mind capable of thought. The first author says that strong AI can not be produced in a computer. The second author attempts to refute the first's argument but does not directly state that he believes strong AI in a computer is possible.
PAPER ONE:
This author uses in his argument a "Chinese Room." In this example, a english-speaking man is in a room with a Chinese story written on the wall. the man is given a book that tells him "how" to respond to the symbols that make up the Chinese language but not "why." To understand further imagine
1. yourself being outside the room.
2. yourself knowing the the man is in the room.
3. yourself slipping questions written in Chinese under the door.
4. The man slipping answers, written in Chinese, to your questions under the door to you.
The author says that because the man inside the room could use the book to answer questions written in Chinese with Chinese but can not speak Chinese then the room (not the man but the room) is not demonstrating strong AI. He says that you could not distinguish the room from a computer that responds to your questions.
PAPER TWO:
This author says that because the room demostates performance, then the room demostrates cognitive ability. This author says that because the room demostrates cognitive ability, that the intelligence is actually contained in the rules in the book that was given to the man in the room. And therefore, the intelligence is built into the room.
My Opinion:
I think the philosophy of the first author is correct but I also think that his argument of the room is bad. He is essentially describing a man locked in a room with decoder ring, and says that because the man has to use his decoder ring that strong AI can not be built into a computer program. It ignores so many intrinsic facts that it is staggering. Similarly, the counter argument of the second author is also faulty, because there is nothing on the other side.
I believe the creation of strong A.I. is possible but I don't think that our correct computer theory can support it. Our current computer theory is based on the reality that we have to pre-program a computer/program to how to respond to many different stimuli and the computer can not respond to stimuli that it has not been prepared for. A separate mind (strong AI) must be able to respond to something that has never been anticipated. Such responses must be based on something intrinsically more powerful than binary language.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:14 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:19 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
