2006.05.11
notquitehuman!
turing test
paper on creating a human - in philosophy journal
the 'imitation game':
communicating with a woman and a man
two people communicating through written communication (typing notes back and forth)
question on gender - embodied aspect
remove the cues of the body - cant see them, voice, handwriting, movement
use language solely as a cue as embodied quality of a person
intellect more important than body?
is intellect separable from the body?
need it to be challenging to be a game
distinguishing and expressing gender - based on cultural knowledge
easier for someone who is living, human, in the culture
what answers are more 'male' or more 'female'?
what does the game say about the question of gender?
- easy to use language
the game, challenge, is a little ambiguous
person + computer ... both claiming they are human
what is the distinction between quality and signal?
is the quality of being human important? the quality or the ability to replicate the quality?
in the game, passing as a woman means that you have the knowledge, but you're not really a 'real' woman
what is the role of language? is the ability to speak in a certain way enough to say that you are?
in intelligence, is language more of a signal?
signalled knowledge ?= real knowledge
surl = phil. at berkeley
the chinese experiment:
every phrase you can translate (just a set of useful responses) from some comprehensive reference
- no knowledge of *meaning*, no learning, just relayed symbols
appears you are speaking chinese, but you have no knowledge
machine only in syntactical domain, not in semantic domain (like humans, interpretation)
- if you make the thought experiment arbitrarily large, does it become just like a complex machine
the human brain - is it merely a machine of highly complex input/output?
what is the degree? what is the metric of 'is it a human'? how far do you go to be convinced?
loebner prize: how convincing is the computer as a human?
loebner
salon article (do not miss)
on wikipedia
is language an assessment signal on how we think?
signal as quality of how thinking works?
shared experience is one thing, but also cultural sharing, but also tiger-standing-on-box thing...
what is the cost of being deceptive?
parsing a grammatical sentence -- for ELIZA, the cost is relatively low
when is it too costly to create something to pass off as human?
expressing subtle reasoning + understanding + shared experience -- how costly to fake it?
is there a
you can signal thinking without 'thinking'
but you must demonstrate + representation of a disembodied quality
can you have real artificial intelligence?
how do you define thought, knowledge, and thinking?
are we more concerned with the signal, or the quality?
robotic pets for therapeutic needs (PARO)
human pet interaction
signaling need for affection
affection --> liveliness?
tamagotchi -- people are obsessed, felt responsible for them, felt sense of failure when it died
but you dont pet it, it's not that 'alive', it's plastic
however, a PARO - mixed of signals, by seeming dependency, needing affection, but also more prototyped as a real being
paro vs. bringing in real animals
no right answer - cannot check quality to signal -
discuss / debate the distinction between quality and signal and the relationship between them and the interpretation of them
how are symbols grounded?
- in physical being
- in
deb roy: robot, sensory experience of the world, build intelligence from sensory experience?
in life, when do we want the signal, and when do want the quality?
what is the cost to the receiver?
do we want to live in a world populated with PARO-like relationships?
affection and relationships that are programmed for emotional needs without 'the mess'
brave new world: future is comfortable, easy, pleasant, but nightmarish emptiness
treasuring things and relationships more
- the investment of energy / time -- a loss
- importance of neutral regard
how much do you care about what the other thing cares about you?
more responsive robots are built seem like they have an opinion of us
in most relationships, want the other person to play their role correctly
not really show what they're really thinking
satisfied with this 'role-playing', being comforted in the interaction
acceptable behaviour
is a person just a conglomeration of mere roles?
existentialism abounds!
but it's almost impossible to reflect what we are really 'are' and thinking through what we can convey
different underlying system to expended costs to express
when do you want to bring in a belief of a relationship or not?
human + machine, or human + human-like machine?
stepford wives - behaving like loving wives, but no meaning / love inside
ritalin, prozac - change inner qualities to reflect a more correct outer quality
more and more, we are questioning -
interaction with humans, interacting in a proper way
turing test
paper on creating a human - in philosophy journal
the 'imitation game':
communicating with a woman and a man
two people communicating through written communication (typing notes back and forth)
question on gender - embodied aspect
remove the cues of the body - cant see them, voice, handwriting, movement
use language solely as a cue as embodied quality of a person
intellect more important than body?
is intellect separable from the body?
need it to be challenging to be a game
distinguishing and expressing gender - based on cultural knowledge
easier for someone who is living, human, in the culture
what answers are more 'male' or more 'female'?
what does the game say about the question of gender?
- easy to use language
the game, challenge, is a little ambiguous
person + computer ... both claiming they are human
what is the distinction between quality and signal?
is the quality of being human important? the quality or the ability to replicate the quality?
in the game, passing as a woman means that you have the knowledge, but you're not really a 'real' woman
what is the role of language? is the ability to speak in a certain way enough to say that you are?
in intelligence, is language more of a signal?
signalled knowledge ?= real knowledge
surl = phil. at berkeley
the chinese experiment:
every phrase you can translate (just a set of useful responses) from some comprehensive reference
- no knowledge of *meaning*, no learning, just relayed symbols
appears you are speaking chinese, but you have no knowledge
machine only in syntactical domain, not in semantic domain (like humans, interpretation)
- if you make the thought experiment arbitrarily large, does it become just like a complex machine
the human brain - is it merely a machine of highly complex input/output?
what is the degree? what is the metric of 'is it a human'? how far do you go to be convinced?
loebner prize: how convincing is the computer as a human?
loebner
salon article (do not miss)
on wikipedia
is language an assessment signal on how we think?
signal as quality of how thinking works?
shared experience is one thing, but also cultural sharing, but also tiger-standing-on-box thing...
what is the cost of being deceptive?
parsing a grammatical sentence -- for ELIZA, the cost is relatively low
when is it too costly to create something to pass off as human?
expressing subtle reasoning + understanding + shared experience -- how costly to fake it?
is there a
you can signal thinking without 'thinking'
but you must demonstrate + representation of a disembodied quality
can you have real artificial intelligence?
how do you define thought, knowledge, and thinking?
are we more concerned with the signal, or the quality?
robotic pets for therapeutic needs (PARO)
human pet interaction
signaling need for affection
affection --> liveliness?
tamagotchi -- people are obsessed, felt responsible for them, felt sense of failure when it died
but you dont pet it, it's not that 'alive', it's plastic
however, a PARO - mixed of signals, by seeming dependency, needing affection, but also more prototyped as a real being
paro vs. bringing in real animals
no right answer - cannot check quality to signal -
discuss / debate the distinction between quality and signal and the relationship between them and the interpretation of them
how are symbols grounded?
- in physical being
- in
deb roy: robot, sensory experience of the world, build intelligence from sensory experience?
in life, when do we want the signal, and when do want the quality?
what is the cost to the receiver?
do we want to live in a world populated with PARO-like relationships?
affection and relationships that are programmed for emotional needs without 'the mess'
brave new world: future is comfortable, easy, pleasant, but nightmarish emptiness
treasuring things and relationships more
- the investment of energy / time -- a loss
- importance of neutral regard
how much do you care about what the other thing cares about you?
more responsive robots are built seem like they have an opinion of us
in most relationships, want the other person to play their role correctly
not really show what they're really thinking
satisfied with this 'role-playing', being comforted in the interaction
acceptable behaviour
is a person just a conglomeration of mere roles?
existentialism abounds!
but it's almost impossible to reflect what we are really 'are' and thinking through what we can convey
different underlying system to expended costs to express
when do you want to bring in a belief of a relationship or not?
human + machine, or human + human-like machine?
stepford wives - behaving like loving wives, but no meaning / love inside
ritalin, prozac - change inner qualities to reflect a more correct outer quality
more and more, we are questioning -
interaction with humans, interacting in a proper way
posted by christine at 12:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home