The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community

Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF

Forum Rules
& FAQ


Username

Password


Create a New Account

 
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index

Philosophy Corner: Ontology by MatthewDBA2009-08-24 06:51:21
  A self-evidential event of the subjective ego by bitflipper2009-08-24 07:26:49
    Would be Descartes-esque. by krikkert2009-08-24 07:33:06
      Actually, I was thinking more of conditions that by bitflipper2009-08-24 07:38:07
        As with anything like this, we need a framework... by jdelphiki2009-08-24 08:02:09
          How about "adaptive behavior"? by bitflipper2009-08-24 08:30:22
            That's an interesting approach. by MatthewDBA2009-08-24 08:34:59
              Perhaps it does by bitflipper 2009-08-24 09:26:36
I'm not sure any "dimebodied intelligence" actually exists, let alone how such a thing would behave.

As far as the exclusion of certain AIs, well, I've always thought the term "Aritficial Intelligence" was being overextended by its common usages in the industry; for an AI to be "intelligent," it needs a fundamental adaptability built into it. It's not enough to ask and answer questions based on a decision tree; this is as limited as the wasp that continues to check its incubating hole every time a spider is moved. It must have within it an ability to change its behaviors--and develop new behaviors--dependent on its situation. It's the "change" and "new" qualificationa that clobber a lot of AIs, and "new" is among the characteristics that separate weak AIs from strong AIs. A weak AI need not be aware and responsive to its environment, so long as it is "adaptive" in working through its decision tree--some of its choices are situationally defined, not just situationally dependent. A strong AI, however, must be aware of itself and its surroundings, and respond to changes in those surroundings, even without full definition of its situation; it must be cognizant, self-aware, and able to overcome uncertainty.

To my way of thinking, many weak AIs are not AIs at all; some of what I have seen touted as "expert systems," for example, have no adaptibility within their algorithms whatsoever; the choices in their decisions trees do not ever change dependant on their situations. By which I do not mean the program always runs the same "if A obtains, then do B, elsewise do C" commands--that applies to all programs that have any modality whatsoever. What I do mean, though, is that A, B, and C never change; for AI's, the conditions and the resultant actions must be changeable--adaptable, in a very fundamental sense--in order to qualify as an aritificial intelligence as opposed to being a very sophisticated (and typically huge, for non-AIs) program. This does not require cognizance or awareness, but there must be a responsiveness and flexibility encoded into the basic operation of the program to be even a weak AI.
[ Reply ]
                How would you be able to tell by MatthewDBA2009-08-24 09:33:52
                  No, an external test is sufficient by bitflipper2009-08-24 09:47:07
                    I'm not as sure as you seem to be by MatthewDBA2009-08-24 09:59:26
                      Most programs are written deliberately to assist by bitflipper2009-08-24 10:47:04
                        You can determine whether another person by MatthewDBA2009-08-24 10:51:07
                          How is it absent? by bitflipper2009-08-24 11:16:26
                            I'm wondering if things like by MatthewDBA2009-08-24 11:28:16
                              But, again, would a conversation with a strong AI by bitflipper2009-08-24 11:52:24
                                One difference between by MatthewDBA2009-08-24 12:28:51
                                Yes, but, by market statistics, most people by bitflipper2009-08-24 13:11:20

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)