We have to start with some kind of task that we don’t have a garden variety search algorithm for. So the counterargument is, look, it’s not a subjective piece of behavior at this level. It’s going to do things time after time after time that are completely mysterious-and efficacious as well.
Forget about one move it’s going to be invincible. Selmer Bringsjord: I have many comments on that… If the machine running this algorithm is able to work fast enough, no human is going to be able to comprehend how it does anything. There was an incredible move at one point, where AlphaGo made a move which was totally contrary to convention and some people point to that and they say, this move was creative. Marks (right): I think some people would probably point to the match between AlphaGo and the world Go champion (I believe his name was Sedol). For example, did AlphaGo, the Go-playing program, pass the test?: Marks on whether the Turing test or his Lovelace test has ever been passed by a machine. Here is a partial transcript, beginning at 13:49, of the continued discussion between Bringsjord and Walter Bradley Center director Robert J. He pioneered the much more challenging Lovelace test, based on an observation from computer pioneer Ada Lovelace (1815–1852) that true creativity distinguishes humans from machines. That is, merely sounding enough like a human to fool people does not establish human-like intelligence in the product it may point only to superior cunning in the creators. In “Thinking machines? The Lovelace test raises the stakes,” Rensselaer philosopher and computer scientist Selmer Bringsjord argued that the iconic Turing test for human-like intelligence in computers is inadequate and easily gamed.
Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Flipboard Print arroba Email
0 kommentar(er)
