|
Philosophy Corner: Ontology | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 06:51:21 |
|
A self-evidential event of the subjective ego | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 07:26:49 |
|
Would be Descartes-esque. | by krikkert | 2009-08-24 07:33:06 |
|
Actually, I was thinking more of conditions that | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 07:38:07 |
|
As with anything like this, we need a framework... | by jdelphiki | 2009-08-24 08:02:09 |
|
How about "adaptive behavior"? | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 08:30:22 |
|
That's an interesting approach. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 08:34:59 |
|
Perhaps it does | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 09:26:36 |
|
How would you be able to tell | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 09:33:52 |
|
No, an external test is sufficient | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 09:47:07 |
|
I'm not as sure as you seem to be | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 09:59:26 |
|
Most programs are written deliberately to assist | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 10:47:04 |
|
You can determine whether another person | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 10:51:07 |
|
How is it absent? | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 11:16:26 |
| I'm wondering if things like |
by MatthewDBA |
2009-08-24 11:28:16 |
| body language, for example, might play into your decision-making process. People are used to machines being unintelligent, or having pseudo-intelligence programmed in. I'd guess that they're more likely to judge an AI as intelligent if it comes in a vaguely human or at least biological-looking form, and acts human (gazes off into the distance when it's trying to remember something, drops its eyes when it's saying something embarrassing, or what-have-you). |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
But, again, would a conversation with a strong AI | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 11:52:24 |
|
One difference between | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 12:28:51 |
|
Yes, but, by market statistics, most people | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 13:11:20 |
