The Turing test, and the Lovelace test, are attempts to determine if computers can show human-like intelligence. Holloway asks, what happens if researchers succeed in creating lifelike machines? in the sense of “wanting” things? “If we create an all-powerful artificial intelligence, we cannot assume it will be friendly. Thus, we need a Terminator test.”
Tag: Eric Holloway
Eric Holloway: Why is randomness a good model, but not a good explanation?
After all, he argues, random processes are used all the time to model things in science: When we test a sequence of numbers for randomness, we are essentially testing how easy it is to predict the sequence of numbers. One of the simplest tests is to measure how frequently heads and tails occur during a Read More…
At Mind Matters News: Randomness is not a scientific explanation
Eric Holloway: … randomness is unprovable, which was proven by three different computer scientists: Ray Solomonoff, Andrey Kolmogorov and Gregory Chaitin. The only thing we can know is that something is not random. Hence, we can never know that something originated from randomness.
From Eric Holloway: COVID-19’s Origins: Uses and Misuses of the Explanatory Filter
Holloway: … “I should mention that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike, and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory,” the expert added. “But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.”
Eric Holloway: How Dembski’s explanatory filter can help quash conspiracy theories
Holloway says he found the explanatory filter quite helpful when investigating voter fraud claims in the recent US election.
Eric Holloway asks, What is the essential feature of creative intelligence?
Holloway: To discover the principle of all principles would cut off the very limb we are sitting upon. That is why the very nature of creative intelligence, though we can catch glimpses of it, will remain forever outside our grasp.
Eric Holloway: Is AI the next stage of evolution?
Holloway: The complex organization of energy we humans see around us in our verdant fertile nest is enormously atypical. This fundamental law drives right through the heart of any technology, genetic or otherwise, that we might invent …
Can a big enough computer come up with a Theory of Everything? Eric Holloway says yer dreamin’…
Bottom line: The rigorously proven No Free Lunch theorem shows that physicists will always be needed to determine the correct questions. No computer will do all our thinking for us.
Eric Holloway: To what extent does life simply invent itself as it goes along?
Eric Holloway argues that the evidence does not really support common descent, not the way Talk Origins believes and we were taught in school.
Putting Richard Dawkins’s evolution claims to a computer science test
Eric Holloway: When we apply Dawkins’s “blind evolution” explanation of the abilities exhibited by insects to the real world engineering, all we get is fancy knob twiddlers.
Eric Holloway: An experiment can test the idea that there is an infinite number of universes
An essential part of the process of discovering the truth will be the disintegration ray gun… Read the fine print.
Eric Holloway: Why engineering can’t be reduced to the laws of physics
He argues that the problem how to account for innovation cannot be solved by anything built upon the laws of physics.
Eric Holloway: Why Bell’s theorem matters
Especially to conservation of information theory: This brings us to a more general result known as the conservation of information. Design theorists William Dembski and Robert J. Marks defined the law of conservation of information in their 2009 paper “Conservation of Information in Search” and then proved the result in their follow-on 2010 paper “The Read More…
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.
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…