Artificial Intelligence Intelligent Design Mind

Robert Marks on the Turing Test vs the Lovelace Test for computer intelligence

Spread the love

Dr. Robert J Marks II From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Science Today:

AIVA [a music generation program] can combine musicals styles — that of, say, Bach and Beethoven, if you feed it enough of those two composers’ works. What such a program can’t do is innovate, says Dr. Marks. It can’t strike out in a new direction of its own, put Bach together with Beethoven and come up with…Stravinsky. Such a leap would be uncomputable, therefore permanently beyond the reach of even the most cleverly designed artificial intelligence.

Marks explains the Lovelace test which, unlike the better-known Turing test, focuses precisely on this hard limit to what computer algorithms can do. AI cannot, in this sense, truly create. That indicates an impassable border for AI, not the only one. Beyond lies the unique realm of the human, no matter what addled things Stephen Hawking may say about computers “replacing” us. More.

Stephen Hawking merely “addled”? It’s come to this? Apparently so.

Podcast: Don’t Raise the White Flag to Our AI Overlords Just Yet

See also: Evolutionary informatics has come a long way since a Baylor dean tried to shut down the lab

4 Replies to “Robert Marks on the Turing Test vs the Lovelace Test for computer intelligence

  1. 1
    vmahuna says:

    This quote is apparent not from any of Voltaire’s writing, but it’s still obviously true:

    “To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    So whatever nonsense Hawking may put out, none of Hawking’s nonsense offends those who rule over us.

    But it does strike me as odd that Scientists who babble about extraterrestrial life are NEVER subjected to the same attacks that are the constant response to people who work things backwards, starting with claims of contact with intelligent extraterrestrials on Earth.

    The logic appears to run: A. There MUST be intelligent life on other planets. B. NONE of that intelligent life has EVER made contact with Earthlings. C. Anyone who questions either A or B is an enemy of Those Who Cannot Be Criticized.

  2. 2
    gpuccio says:

    Very simply, non conscious agents cannot define any new functional specification, because function can only be perceived as a conscious experience of cognition and feeling.

  3. 3
    critical rationalist says:

    To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize

    And how do you suggest we might we go about doing that?

    If they are not offended by our criticism, isn’t it far to late at that point? And how do you differencate between not being offended and not existing?

    If they use violence to suppress criticism, does that mean they rule by nature of being more powerful that those they supress?

  4. 4
    critical rationalist says:

    When a scientist in Russia developed a theory of electromagnetic reflection, the United States, wanting to build stealth aircraft, obtained it and developed an algorithm using that theory to randomly alter flight worthy aircraft shapes and to test which were the least reflective. At which point, the US held a significant advantage over Russia.

    Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) would not need us to input the Theory of electromagnetic reflection. It would create genuinely new knowelge that we did not program into the system.

    Specifically, when presented with the problem of how to avoid detection via radar, it would conjecture some theory about how the world works, in reality, that explains why how radar is reflected off objects, and that theory would be subject to criticsm based on actual reflections from other shapes, directions, etc. And when sufficiently developed, it would play the role of theory developed in Russia. From there, the process would continue along the same lines.

    So, behavior, in the sense of the Turing test, is not a good metric of AGI.

    People create explanatory knowelge (innovate new explanations) by making educated guesses directed at solving problems, then testing them against how well they solve the problem in question, discarding errors that they find. This is a process because we cannot derive new theories from observations.

Leave a Reply