Views
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
Page ✓
Article
Outline
Document
Down
All
Canvas
Time
Timeline
Calendar
Request email digest
Past 24 hours
Past 2 days
Past 3 days
Past week
Add
Add page
Add comment
Add citation
Edit
Edit page
Delete page
Share
Link
Bookmark
Embed
Social media
Login
Member login
Register now for a free account
🔎
All Possible Conversations Machine
SupportiveArgument
1
#278
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 programmer's intelligence.
Ned Block, 1981.
"
This machine isn't intelligent. Its intelligence comes for the programmers who coded in all the conversations."
Note
: Block simply calls this the "Unintelligent Machine".
CONTEXT
(Help)
-
Artificial Intelligence »
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]
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
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
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
●
All intelligent machines exhibit their designer's intelligence »
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 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
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
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
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 is dated »
Machine is dated
Machine is dated☜The machine would not be able to answer questions about current events.☜EF597B
●
Machine redefines intelligence »
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?
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
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
◄
Ned Block »
Ned Block
Ned Block☜Arguments advanced by Ned Block.☜FFFACD
◄
SUPER PARRY could pass Test by brute force »
SUPER PARRY could pass Test by brute force
SUPER PARRY could pass Test by brute force☜An advanced alien civilisation could write a program, like, Colbys PARRY, containing ready made responses to questions. This SUPER PARRY would be better prepared for the test, however, because it would contain responses to all possible questions.☜FFFACD
Heading
Summary
Click the button to enter task scheduling information
Open
Details
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:
#278
Node type:
SupportiveArgument
Entry date (GMT):
6/15/2006 11:36:00 AM
Last edit date (GMT):
12/9/2007 11:20:00 PM
Show other editors
Incoming cross-relations:
2
Outgoing cross-relations:
0
Average rating:
0
by
0
users
x
Select file to upload