Originally posted by StarValleyWy
I have followed this thread with a bit of interest, and it strikes me that nobody has yet thought it important to define "Real Intelligence". We all just cruise along on a sea of ignorant bliss, assuming that there is such a thing as "Intelligence". Define it. What is it? Do "we" have it? Who are "we"? and Why?
Is there such a thing as "Real ...[text shortened]... we can talk about the "artificial" form of the real.
Just a thought. Maybe real. Maybe not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_%28trait%29
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree the world around us does that too, it does provide us with
My point is that the world around us provides evidence which helps us decide what is best to believe; that is, what is most likely to be true. If a baseball came flying through my window and I looked outside and there was a person w ...[text shortened]... the future with further advances in technology taken into account.
evidence which helps us decide what is best to believe. Now that does
not mean we will all agree with what is best, but it is here for us to
decide.
Your use of baseball does not fit what we are talking about with regard
to light and stars, but does fit reading a voltage drop like we have
been talking about. We have seen baseballs get hit and fly, we have
played baseball, we have watched others start and end games. We
have watched every detail there is about baseball. Which is also the
same with voltage drops too, it is all in the here and now.
With stars, have you seen the start of this universe, any universe?
Have you witnessed the start of light leave a star 1 billion light years
away and travel to the earth from beginning to end? As far as what
I have said about star light just appearing, where have I said that?
I have said we don't know how old the star light is, nothing else if
I'm not mistaken. Point me to something else if I did suggest it
any other way.
Kelly
The turing test is not really relevant to the question I think the original poster of this thread was trying to ask. A machine capable of passing the turing test needn't be hard ai. It needn't have any reasoning abilities at all - it just needs to trick a person into believing it is human.
I don't see any immediate reason why hard AI will be impossible. In fact the working of the brain is entirely material and of course humans will in due course learn how to mimic its workings.
Originally posted by PotatoErrorChess software can trick humans now, what is the big deal there?
The turing test is not really relevant to the question I think the original poster of this thread was trying to ask. A machine capable of passing the turing test needn't be hard ai. It needn't have any reasoning abilities at all - it just needs to trick a person into believing it is human.
I don't see any immediate reason why hard AI will be imposs ...[text shortened]... in is entirely material and of course humans will in due course learn how to mimic its workings.
Kelly
Originally posted by zeeblebotwow, some nice websites, it'll take me a week to read all that on the A.I. page... I think i'll get my bot to do it...
y'all aren't keeping your ends up ...
robots, robots, robots:
http://www.stargeek.com/item/62485.html
pino GPL'd bipedal robot:
http://www.symbio.jst.go.jp/PINO/OpenPINO/open_pino.html
do-it-yourself and save on the kit price ($29K kit, $45K assembled).
(kilobucks not yen.)
they could do OCR ... i don't know what a bot would do with a book though ... not much, yet ...
i think today's CPUs are too linear, they have that hyperthread stuff on the newer ones (whatever that is) but i would rather see banks of smaller processors (like Cypress' tiny 6-pin SMT microcontrollers) than more and more bigger/better chips ...
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt doesn't matter, linear or not. There is more to understanding
they could do OCR ... i don't know what a bot would do with a book though ... not much, yet ...
i think today's CPUs are too linear, they have that hyperthread stuff on the newer ones (whatever that is) but i would rather see banks of smaller processors (like Cypress' tiny 6-pin SMT microcontrollers) than more and more bigger/better chips ...
than that.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by STANGNah, considering the thread is about AI, it should be called "Dr. Know" 😉
If George Bush can do it, so can a robot with artificial intelligence.
It would be interesting to see a robot with wireless access to the world wide web in a hundred years from now.
I'd talk to someone who had that much knowledge and c ...[text shortened]... t all the different opinions. Let's call the robot "Professor".
MÅ¥HÅRM
EDIT: oops, just realised how old this thread is... 🙄