The thread about:"Would you marry a robot?" got me to wondering about this again.
According to Turing; if the Machine that you're conversing with via keyboard is absolutely indistinguishable from a human in the same situation; then it is intellegent enough to qualify as sentient.
This is the Gedanken machine that I call a "Semantisizer." Fundamentally it is all talk. It can:
A.} Recognizing any familiar word.
B.} Defining any familiar word in terms of other familiar words--although if persued persistantly enough, the definitions become circular--as indeed will happen anytime you play the Definition Game long ennough.
Well, so far its on parr with a dictionary.
C.} It will ask for definitions of new words. Failing to get a reasonable definition; it is capable of hypothesizing a reasonable definition; refining the definition over time; and eventually accepting the new word into it's use vocabulary.
D.} We do a far better job of codifying the rules of grammer; syntax; symantics; speech and conversation than has ever been done heretofore.
E.} We add in logic and game playing theory.
F.} We manage to make the thing self-programming for conversational strategies; but strategies that cause people to converse with it longer are the preferred strategies.
Presumably, as it perfects it's conversational strategies, it will become more pleasant to interact with--leading to longer conversations. That might require tweaking eventually.
We give it pleny of time to talk to very many people over a very long period, to allow it to fully evolve its emergent conversational strategies.
It can definately pass the Turing Test--but would it truly be sentient?
I kinda doubt it. The only thing it understands is words.
If you could somehow contrive to pour direct experience into it--it couldn't distinguish between the taste of a stawberry or the sensation of being burned alive.
It could define "Orgasm" for you; learnedly discuss the biology; ethics; metaphysics and literary treatment of the Orgasm--but if you poured an Orgasm into it; it would have no idea if it had just experience Orgasm; Ice Cream; a Drill Sargent or Ennui...
Stipulated: if you kept pouring sensory material into it; it might very well learn. Never Mind. It is not terribly sentient NOW.
So can a sufficiently sophisticated word processor--that has no other sensory or data processing abilities, be classified as SENTIENT?
.....RVM45
According to Turing; if the Machine that you're conversing with via keyboard is absolutely indistinguishable from a human in the same situation; then it is intellegent enough to qualify as sentient.
This is the Gedanken machine that I call a "Semantisizer." Fundamentally it is all talk. It can:
A.} Recognizing any familiar word.
B.} Defining any familiar word in terms of other familiar words--although if persued persistantly enough, the definitions become circular--as indeed will happen anytime you play the Definition Game long ennough.
Well, so far its on parr with a dictionary.
C.} It will ask for definitions of new words. Failing to get a reasonable definition; it is capable of hypothesizing a reasonable definition; refining the definition over time; and eventually accepting the new word into it's use vocabulary.
D.} We do a far better job of codifying the rules of grammer; syntax; symantics; speech and conversation than has ever been done heretofore.
E.} We add in logic and game playing theory.
F.} We manage to make the thing self-programming for conversational strategies; but strategies that cause people to converse with it longer are the preferred strategies.
Presumably, as it perfects it's conversational strategies, it will become more pleasant to interact with--leading to longer conversations. That might require tweaking eventually.
We give it pleny of time to talk to very many people over a very long period, to allow it to fully evolve its emergent conversational strategies.
It can definately pass the Turing Test--but would it truly be sentient?
I kinda doubt it. The only thing it understands is words.
If you could somehow contrive to pour direct experience into it--it couldn't distinguish between the taste of a stawberry or the sensation of being burned alive.
It could define "Orgasm" for you; learnedly discuss the biology; ethics; metaphysics and literary treatment of the Orgasm--but if you poured an Orgasm into it; it would have no idea if it had just experience Orgasm; Ice Cream; a Drill Sargent or Ennui...
Stipulated: if you kept pouring sensory material into it; it might very well learn. Never Mind. It is not terribly sentient NOW.
So can a sufficiently sophisticated word processor--that has no other sensory or data processing abilities, be classified as SENTIENT?
.....RVM45
Last edited:
