RichardKennaway comments on The flawed Turing test: language, understanding, and partial p-zombies - Less Wrong

11 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 17 May 2013 02:02PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (184)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 18 May 2013 08:13:51PM 6 points [-]

Because it acts in a manner that keeps it and the person of interest near each other.

So does a magnet. So does a homing missile. But a north pole does not love a south pole, and a missile does not love its target. Neither do rivers long to meet the sea, nor does fire long to ascend to heaven, nor do rocks desire the centre of the earth.

Why should I attribute emotions to you?

Because you experience them yourself, and I seem to be the same sort of thing as you are. Without any knowledge of what emotions are, that's the best one can do.

This does not work for robots at the current state of the art.

Comment author: DanielLC 18 May 2013 08:40:32PM 1 point [-]

So does a magnet.

True, but we can make robots better than that. The one I mentioned was capable of changing to be like that with the presence of a person. I don't know much about that particular robot, but we can make ones that will change generally act in a manner that will put themselves in similar situation to the one they're in at a given time, which is the best way I can define happiness, and we can make them happy when they're near a specific person.

In any case, there is still a more basic problem. Why do you say that a magnet doesn't love? I'm not saying that it does to any non-negligible extent, but it would be helpful to have a definition more precise than "do what humans do".

This does not work for robots at the current state of the art.

Can you give an example of when it possible could work for robots? It sounds like you're saying that it's not love unless they're conscious. While that is a necessary condition to make it an consciousness test, if that's how you know it's love than it's circular. In order to prove it's conscious it has to prove it can love. In order to prove it can love it must prove that it's conscious.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 19 May 2013 08:45:01AM 1 point [-]

Can you give an example of when it possible could work for robots?

No, because I don't know what emotions are. I don't believe anyone else does either. Neither does anyone know what consciousness is. Nobody even knows what an answer to the question would look like.