Can Artificial Intelligence have free will?

BidenPresident said:
Ok, smart guy. What is Turing's paper about?
Click to expand...
Whoa, not so fast. You were the one who claimed expertise in AI because you somehow studied "the theory", citing Turing's paper ... which has next to nothing to do with AI. Why are you now asking me to explain to you what Turing wrote in his paper?
 
IBDaMann said:
Whoa, not so fast. You were the one who claimed expertise in AI because you somehow studied "the theory", citing Turing's paper ... which has next to nothing to do with AI. Why are you now asking me to explain to you what Turing wrote in his paper?
Click to expand...

All scientists know Turing's paper was about how machines think. You know nothing.
 
BidenPresident said:
All scientists know Turing's paper was about how machines think.
Click to expand...
Nope. That's not the paper you cited. You cited Turing's 1952 paper which has nothing to do with AI.

In Turing's 1950 paper, he makes a suggestion as to what artificial intelligence might be like. He gets it wrong, though. It's OK because it was 1950 and people were pretty clueless as to what concepts should be embodied in that term. The bottom line is that artificial intelligence needs to be much more than simply fooling a human. Magicians fool humans all the time and we don't ascribe artificial intelligence to their magic acts. When Global Warming preachers fool stupid, undereducated and gullible leftists into believing that physics violations are thettled thienth, we don't say "Hey, that was some pretty good artificial intelligence!"
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope. That's not the paper you cited. You cited Turing's 1952 paper which has nothing to do with AI.

In Turing's 1950 paper, he makes a suggestion as to what artificial intelligence might be like. He gets it wrong, though. It's OK because it was 1950 and people were pretty clueless as to what concepts should be embodied in that term. The bottom line is that artificial intelligence needs to be much more than simply fooling a human. Magicians fool humans all the time and we don't ascribe artificial intelligence to their magic acts. When Global Warming preachers fool stupid, undereducated and gullible leftists into believing that physics violations are thettled thienth, we don't say "Hey, that was some pretty good artificial intelligence!"
Click to expand...

I corrected it long ago as 1950 then posted a link to the article. Quit wasting my time.
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope. That's not the paper you cited. You cited Turing's 1952 paper which has nothing to do with AI.

In Turing's 1950 paper, he makes a suggestion as to what artificial intelligence might be like. He gets it wrong, though. It's OK because it was 1950 and people were pretty clueless as to what concepts should be embodied in that term. The bottom line is that artificial intelligence needs to be much more than simply fooling a human. Magicians fool humans all the time and we don't ascribe artificial intelligence to their magic acts. When Global Warming preachers fool stupid, undereducated and gullible leftists into believing that physics violations are thettled thienth, we don't say "Hey, that was some pretty good artificial intelligence!"
Click to expand...

Obviously you never read the paper. You know nothing about it.
 
BidenPresident said:
Obviously you never read the paper. You know nothing about it.
Click to expand...
Obviously you never studied anything about artificial intelligence. You know nothing about it. Let me know when you think my living room furniture will start offering arrangement suggestions for better feng shui. Until then, stop wasting my time.
 
BidenPresident said:
I corrected it long ago as 1950
Click to expand...
I saw no correction. I quoted you in my post. You should have said something then. I'm guessing you didn't because you don't know what you're talking about. You wouldn't recognize a neural net if you were looking at one. You think that fooling people constitutes "artificial intelligence." You understand AI less than laymen of the 1950s. Stop wasting my time.
 
The view that machines cannot give rise to surprises is due, I believe,
to a fallacy to which philosophers and mathematicians are particularly
subject. This is the assumption that as soon as a fact is presented to a mind
all consequences of that fact spring into the mind simultaneously with it. It
is a very useful assumption under many circumstances, but one too easily
forgets that it is false. A natural consequence of doing so is that one then
assumes that there is no virtue in the mere working out of consequences
from data and general principles.

https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238
 
IBDaMann said:
I saw no correction. I quoted you in my post. You should have said something then. I'm guessing you didn't because you don't know what you're talking about. You wouldn't recognize a neural net if you were looking at one. You think that fooling people constitutes "artificial intelligence." You understand AI less than laymen of the 1950s. Stop wasting my time.
Click to expand...

ok,bye
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top