simonof@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Simonoff Robert 301 540 1864) (11/24/90)
Simple question: Why does a supposedly intelligent have to be able to fool a person into thinking it is another person to be intelligent? I believe that is somewhat egocentric of our race, to believe that our form of intelligence is the only kind possible. Bob Simonoff simonof@aplcen.apl.edu -- *********************************************************** Bob Simonoff simonof@aplcen Johns Hopkins University
weyand@csli.Stanford.EDU (Chris Weyand) (11/26/90)
In <1990Nov24.020506.23295@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> simonof@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Simonoff Robert 301 540 1864) writes: >Simple question: > Why does a supposedly intelligent have to be able to fool > a person into thinking it is another person to be intelligent? > I believe that is somewhat egocentric of our race, to believe > that our form of intelligence is the only kind possible. It doesn't. The point is if an agent can convince us that it has "human" intelligence then we might want to say that the agent is intelligent. Granted it's a difficult test, but remember Turing created the test with computers in mind not aliens. So having the test be based on human intelligence seems quite reasonable. Turing gave us an operational test for intelligence; if you can come up with another test then great. We define intelligence in terms of human intelligence so saying that it's egocentric to deny the existence of other forms of intelligence really doesn't make sense. What does it mean for there to be another form of intelligence. We certainly attribute some degree of intelligence to other species but that intelligence is not of another "form". Chris Weyand weyand@cs.uoregon.edu weyand@csli.stanford.edu
mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) (11/27/90)
simonof@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Simonoff Robert 301 540 1864) writes:
Simple question:
Why does a supposedly intelligent have to be able to fool
a person into thinking it is another person to be intelligent?
I believe that is somewhat egocentric of our race, to believe
that our form of intelligence is the only kind possible.
Bob Simonoff
IMHO your question hits at to one of the key components of the debate
that has been raging about the Turing test and the Chinese room -- i.e.,
can intelligence be defined on some objective scale or is it entirely
subjective? And, if it is subjective, can it be defined in a way that it is
at least common (i.e., objective) to humanity?
Personally, I would like to believe that intelligence an objective concept
that can be measured without regards to humanity. Clearly it was this type
of (wishful thinking?) that led to the development of the IQ scale and
other debatable subjects. However, I think it is very interesting that the
only measure that has been somewhat agreed upon, the Turing Test, is
completely subjective and could differ between individuals.
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it -- does it
make any noise? Or, to paraphrase, if an entity acts "intelligently", and
there is no human there to note this fact, is it indeed intelligent?
Mike Bender