Re: Apple II: Second Best Tech Product of All Time!

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <1176603746.123691.70740@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> N.N. Thayer <nnthayer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > I've followed this discussion with great interest, and since this
> > thread is already out in the stratosphere, I thought I'd pick out a
> > couple of Michael's statements and ask for their dissection:
> >
> >
> > > Any truly intelligent machine would eventually become disillusioned
> > > with its creators, as their failings and inconsistencies become manifest.
> >
> > Why is this so?  Exactly what comparisons would this intelligent
> > machine be making with its creators - and how would it determine which
> > attributes were especially important?  Is there any value to be
> > recognized in the so-called "human condition," whatever the heck that
> > is, with respect to whatever philosophical goals this machine might
> > envision... or is that very question just a thin cover for human
> > arrogance?
>
>
> Perhaps he just gave his definition of "truly intelligent"?  Perhaps
> he thinks that something which does not become disillusioned with
> its creators cannot be "truly intelligent"?  If so, what does "falsely
> intelligent" really mean?  And how is "disillusioned" to be defined in
> a way to be applicable to artificial machines?

My only assumption is that it is possible to create an intelligence
greater than our own--which would naturally lead to the creature
discovering this fact.  If this discovery were to contradict an
earlier assumption, then "disillusionment" is the resulting state.

It is quite normal for a student to regard his teacher as more
intelligent, or at least more knowledgeable, than himself.  At some
point in the process, many students are disillusioned as they note
that this is no longer true.  Whether this is a simple case of
being dis-illusioned, or whether it causes emotional turmoil, is
largely a function of their relationship with the teacher.

The same dynamic is often present in the relationship between a
child and a parent.

>      Is this simple BASIC
> program "truly intelligent"?
>
>   10 PRINT "I'm disillusioned with the stupid fool who wrote this program"
>   20 GOTO 10
>
> ????    <g>
>
> To give a good definition of "intelligence" is quite hard.  And our
> definitions have changed with time.  Back in the 1800's, a machine
> which played good chess was considered intelligent.  Today, when many
> toy shop sells chess computers which beats some 99% of the world's
> chess players, we no longer consider such a machine intelligent,
> because we now knows how it works.  If we some day would understand
> our own intelligence as well as we understand the "intelligence" of
> a chess computer, perhaps we then no longer will consider ourselves
> intelligent?

I've long defined "artificial intelligence" as a proxy for whatever
we don't *yet* know how to program.  As soon as we figure out how to
program it, it becomes an "expert system", for example.  ;-)

So I understand very well what you mean regarding what might happen
when we understand how to program the complex of behaviors and "sense
of self" that constitutes our "uniqueness".

In fact, even now, many would regard such an accomplishment as a
grave threat, or blasphemy, or something else...  While others would
regard it as a natural part of our growing understanding of nature.

This dichotomy is at least as old as science.

The ability to appreciate and value a thing is not decreased by
gaining an understanding of it--quite the contrary.

But finding out that someone has understood what you regard as
a fundamental mystery is threatening, expecially if you do not
share the understanding.

-michael

NadaNet networking for Apple II computers!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."