comments
Respond
Comment on the article
Add a citation
Reply with an article
Start a new topic
Edit
Edit article
Delete article
Share
Invite
Link
Embed
Social media
Avatar
View
Graph
Explorer
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 levels
Load all levels
All
Dagre
Focus
Down
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Load 4 level
Load all levels
All
Tree
SpaceTree
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Radial
Focus
Expanding
Load 1 level
Load 2 levels
Load 3 levels
Down
All
Down
Box
Focus
Expanding
Down
Up
All
Down
Article ✓
Outline
Document
Down
All
Page
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Updates
Subscribe to updates
Get updates
Past 24 hours
Past week
Past month
Past year
Pause updates
Contact us
Machine is dated
The machine would not be able to answer questions about current events.
Argument anticipated by Ned Block, 1981.
RELATED ARTICLES
Explain
⌅
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence☜A collaboratively editable version of Robert Horns brilliant and pioneering debate map Can Computers Think?—exploring 50 years of philosophical argument about the possibility of computer thought.☜F1CEB7
⌃
Can the Turing Test determine this? [2]
Can the Turing Test determine this? [2] ☜Is the Turing Test—proposed by Alan Turing in 1950—an adequate test of thinking? Can it determine whether a machine can think? If a computer passess the test by persuading judges via a teletyped conversation that its human can it be said to think?☜FFB597
⌃
No: but Neo-Turing test is adequate
No: but Neo-Turing test is adequate☜The neo-Turing test interprets the Turing test as providing an overt, measurable behavioural and operational definition of thinking—and refines the test to avoid classical problems associated with behaviourism and other related criticisms.☜59C6EF
⌃
The Psychologism Objection
The Psychologism Objection☜Behaviour by itself isnt enough: internal differences matter. If two systems behave in exactly the same way, one might be intelligent while the other is stupid because of differences in the way each system processes information.☜EF597B
⌃
All Possible Conversations Machine
All Possible Conversations Machine☜An unintelligent machine engaging in sensible conversation by searching a database containing all possible lines of conversation in a finite Turing test, would pass the neo-Turing test—but it would be only echoing its programmers intelligence.☜98CE71
■
Machine is dated
Machine is dated☜The machine would not be able to answer questions about current events.☜EF597B
↳
Dated system can still be intelligent
Dated system can still be intelligent☜Intelligence doesnt require knowledge of current events. For example, the machine could be programmed to simulate Robinson Crusoe, who is intelligent even though he cant answer questions about recent events.☜EF597B
↳
Machine could be updated
Machine could be updated☜Programmers could periodically update the machines list of responses.☜EF597B
□
All intelligent machines exhibit their designer's intelligence
All intelligent machines exhibit their designer's intelligence☜Theres nothing unusual about the all-possible-conversations machine. It may be said of any intelligent machine that its intelligence is really just that of its designers.☜EF597B
□
Bantering zombies can't think
Bantering zombies can't think☜Bantering zombies, using processing mechanisms far superior to those of the all possible conversations machine would still be unintelligent. No matter how much we enrich the machines information processing, it cant think unless its conscious.☜EF597B
□
Brute list-searcher can't respond flexibly to change
Brute list-searcher can't respond flexibly to change☜The all possible conversations machine couldnt adapt its speech to novel and changing contexts. A machine searching a list to produce responses to verbal stimuli wouldnt be able to adapt coherently to the continigencies of ongoing conversation.☜EF597B
□
Chauvinistic to assume we're better than the machine
Chauvinistic to assume we're better than the machine☜A system that processes information differently than we do many not be intelligent in our sense, but we may not be in its sense either. To assume that human intelligence is is better than machine intelligence is chauvanistic.☜EF597B
□
Machine can't pass the Cyberiad Test
Machine can't pass the Cyberiad Test☜The Cyberiad Test tests for survival in a natural environment—which requiries more than linguistic ability—and hence linguistic competence alone isnt sufficient to pass the Cyberiad Test.☜EF597B
□
Machine redefines intelligence
Machine redefines intelligence☜We normally conceive of intelligence relative to input-output capacity, not relative to internal-processing. Stipulating an internal processing condition on intelligence merely redefines intelligence.☜EF597B
□
What if we are all like this machine?
What if we are all like this machine?☜Suppose humans process information in the same way that the all-possible-conversations machine does. Would this mean that we are unintellligent?☜EF597B
□
Combinatorial explosion makes the machine impossible
Combinatorial explosion makes the machine impossible☜Programming the machine to engage in an hour long Turing test is impossible, because it would give rise to a combinatorial explosion. The programmer would have to code more strings than there are particles in the universe.☜FF97FF
□
Graph of this discussion
Graph of this discussion☜Click this to see the whole debate, excluding comments, in graphical form☜dcdcdc
Enter the title of your article
Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Enter the main body of your article
Prefer more work space? Try the
big editor
Enter task details
Message text
Select assignee(s)
Due date (click calendar)
RadDatePicker
RadDatePicker
Open the calendar popup.
Calendar
Title and navigation
Title and navigation
<<
<
November 2024
>
<<
November 2024
S
M
T
W
T
F
S
44
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
45
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
46
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
47
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
48
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Reminder
No reminder
1 day before due
2 days before due
3 days before due
1 week before due
Ready to post
Copy to text
Enter
Cancel
Task assignment(s) have been emailed and cannot now be altered
Lock
Cancel
Save
Comment graphing options
Choose comments:
Comment only
Whole thread
All comments
Choose location:
To a new map
To this map
New map options
Select map ontology
Options
Standard (default) ontology
College debate ontology
Hypothesis ontology
Influence diagram ontology
Story ontology
Graph to private map
Cancel
Proceed
+Comments (
0
)
- Comments
Add a comment
Newest first
Oldest first
Show threads
+Citations (
0
)
- Citations
Add new citation
List by:
Citerank
Map
+About
- About
Entered by:-
David Price
NodeID:
#282
Node type:
OpposingArgument
Entry date (GMT):
6/15/2006 1:35:00 PM
Last edit date (GMT):
12/9/2007 11:19:00 PM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
0
Outgoing cross-relations:
0
Average rating:
0
by
0
users
Enter comment
Select article text to quote
Cancel
Enter
welcome text
First name
Last name
Email
Skip
Join
x
Select file to upload
