Even infants learn to generalize without programming and do not get stuck in endless feedback loops.
Artificial Intelligence
Oxford mathematician: Computers will not out-think humans
Lennox: Our undoubted progress in technology in terms of speed and competence can easily mask the huge barrier that stands in the way of superior intelligent machines — consciousness.
At Mind Matters News: George Montañez on what’s wrong with the Turing Test
Marks: It’s very easy to determine if who you’re talking to is a computer. You just ask them to compute the square root of 30 or something, because a human would take a while to get the square root of 30.
A philosopher explains how you can know for sure that you are not a sim
As philosopher Richard Johns explains, sims do not understand simhood: How can Alice determine whether the strange little man in her apartment who claims to be her Programmer is telling the truth? Recently, philosopher Richard Johns (left), whose work was profiled here at Mind Matters News in “A philosopher explains why thinking matter is impossible,” Read More…
AI replacing humans is consistent with Dawkins’s naturalist philosophy
Which is where the wheels come off.
Will we turn science over to computers?
Some have prophesied better futures for science than does the futuristic guy at the Santa Fe Institute.
Selmer Bringsjord: Why our minds can’t really be uploaded to computers
The basic problem is that human minds aren’t “computable.” Peter and Jane are not bits and bytes
Eric Holloway: Why your computer will never talk to you
As a jokester recently demonstrated, even “shirts without stripes” is a fundamental, unsolvable problem for computers.
Selmer Bringsjord: Can human minds be reduced to computer programs?
In Silicon Valley that has long been a serious belief. But are we really anywhere close?
Has any “thinking machine” passed the Lovelace test?
Surprising results from computer programs do not equate to creativity, says computer scientist Selmer Bringsjord. Is there such a thing as machine creativity? The feats of machines like AlphaGo are due to superior computational power, not to creativity at originating new ideas. Computer scientist Selmer Bringsjord sees the ability to write, say, a novel of Read More…
How the Lovelace test raises the stakes for thinking machines
The Turing test has had a free ride in science media for far too long, says an AI expert: In the view of Rensselaer philosopher and computer scientist Selmer Bringsjord, the iconic Turing test for human-like intelligence in computers is inadequate and easily gamed. Merely sounding enough like a human to fool people does not Read More…
Eric Holloway: A scientific test for true intelligence
A scientific test should identify precisely what humans can do that computers cannot, avoiding subjective opinion: The “broken checkerboard” is not the ultimate scientific test for intelligence that we need. But it is a truly scientific test in the sense that it is capable of falsifying the theory that the mind is reducible to computation. Read More…
Eric Holloway: What’s hard for computers is easy for humans
We often hear that what’s hard for humans is easy for computers. But it turns out that many kinds of problems are exceedingly hard for computers to solve. This class of problems, known as NP-Complete (NPC), was independently discovered by Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin.
Eric Holloway: The Turing test is unscientific
Holloway: This test for intelligence, the Turing Test, was invented by and named after the mid-twentieth century computer pioneer Alan Turing. It is a subjective test in that it depends on whether an artificial intelligence is capable of convincing human testers that it is a human. But fooling humans, while impressive, is not really the same thing as actually possessing human-level intelligence.
Michael Egnor: Jeffrey Shallit, a computer scientist, doesn’t know how computers work
Egnor: It’s remarkable that Dr. Shallit—a professor of computer science—doesn’t understand computation. Materialism is a kind of intellectual disability that afflicts even the well-educated. To put it simply, machines don’t and can’t think. Dr. Shallit’s wristwatch doesn’t know what time it is.