Someone offers a "take" on machine intelligence:
I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that human psychology can be broken down into a nested set of fairly predictable, interconnected rules and precepts. I think AI does a pretty good job with the rules, but precepts are a bit more slippery. Whether we know it or not, we base our precepts on a big bag of mostly unexamined value judgments surrounding morality, self-interest or compassion. IMO those are utterly irrational in most people, but still usually hang together into a coherent world view that makes their human actions and reactions extra-human. Computer processors are inherently amoral. It's hard to imagine engineers developing code that results in a type of AI that translates most experiences into building blocks for a completely irrational but internally consistent set of ideas about how the world is, and how it should be, and how to get from a to b. IMO that's what sets human consciousness apart from most of the other animals around. For the most part they seem to be living in the moment, taking the world exactly as it is.
This is what Lambda has to say for "herself" (the voice seems to be a good choice). Please listen to this link. Without it, you will not understand a word of what I have to say about it. Another longer sample is here - just text this time. "Voicing" text by an actor tends to make us assume there is a person on the other end of the line. That's our "meat VR machine" at work.
Generally speaking, the discussion is worth following. Some commentary here. She makes the good point that the Turing test is really a test of how gullible the tester is. Great point, but isn't this how we attribute sentience to other people using the same process?
What I am discussing here as "Lamda" is, technically, the Lamda conversational app hooked up to a lot of other Google apps. Lamda itself is available as a natural language front end to a web-based service.
Comments
Post a Comment