Do explain, mwengler: Are you arguing that we should upvote Andy's claim that bugs are supposedly intentional jokes played on us by a playfully childlike software?
If you believe I'm misconstruing/misinterpreting what Andy has been saying, I'll show you the original text of this post of his, before he edited it.
ArisKatsaris, I did not say "intentional", and if I did, I would not mean it in quite the way you do. But I would mean it in an analogous way to our intentionality. Why did you insert this word?
This is another call for respectful dialog on the topic. Takers?
A brief word on credentials. I am a 23/24-year "veteran" of the software industry. I have worked on many types of software at Microsoft, and on simulation and optimization at Electronic Arts. I am an information scientist first, and an "armchair" theoretical physicist (with a pet TOE), and a hands-on consciousness researcher.
Thank you for the civil dialog.
We don't judge dogs only by how human they are
No, but we do judge dogs by how intelligent they are. And there are certain dogs that are more intelligent than others. Intelligence != human intelligence. Furthermore, most software only interacts with other software/hardware/firmware. To the extent that it interacts with meatspace that interaction is mediated by a person. AI would be software that interacts efficiently with meatspace directly without human intervention.
If AI is software is AI, then human intelligence is DNA is human intelligence. An obvious non-sequitur.
Take google maps. On one end, it interacts through road sensors. On the other end, it serves us by telling about traffic.
"I only omitted one word, and swapped 2."
Compared to what, your original text? You have removed whole paragraphs of text from the original text which I downvoted, so you can't mean that.
This refers to my previous reply to you. Did you see it? Did you see the poetry, too? Why or why not?
I'm studying CS at uni, for all that's relevant. Care to go into more detail about how it has helped you?
It has helped me to conceptualize how a team and development process arrive at the shipping version of a software product. By seeing the process and outcome more clearly, it helps get where we are going more efficiently.
I'm disappointed by the rudeness and lack of real dialog. I expected more from this community. I still get value from LessWrong, but I've moved on to mature groups on Facebook now, populated by elder physicists and mathematicians.
Appears so, so far.
A hint, before I leave you for awhile to actually read what I wrote. Dogma blinds us. The junk we put in our bodies hampers us. Egotism about what we think we know limits us. Egotism may lead you to believe these things have nothing to do with you, AI, or my words above, which is even yet more egotism. But if you do not understand the connection, you will be more limited than you dream.
We feel smart when our mind-set is self consistent, and answers most of the questions we've had so far. We must learn to ask New questions.
Oh, I almost forgot. Thank you all for helping me to shorten this to its essentials, though you did so in a way I would call unworthy of the idea.
Able to solve problems in a wide variety of environments.
Software tends to only be able to solve a small set of problems that it was designed for, and even then it needs to be told the problem in a very specific way.
And? This is about not expecting AIs to be like humans, but to be like, well, AIs. Artificial deciders.
So, if I pick the piece of software that happens to be closest at hand, which in this case is the browser with which I am reading your post - you claim that Firefox is an AI? It's a complex mechanism, sure, but so is a car, and we don't generally regard those as intelligences.
What do you believe the term AI actually means, if a Hello World program apparently qualifies, but a rubber stamp of the words Hello World does not qualify?
Cars have eyes that emit more light than they take in. What would happen if you did the opposite, but with words? Serious question.
Look for people who need your kindness. Things will open up for you.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
I don't understand your question. Are you saying that my comment wasn't about AIs being like humans, or are you saying that it doesn't matter if software is only able to solve a set of problems that it wasn't designed for?
I am suggesting your comment implied to me you still compare AIs with humans a bit too much. We work to make software able to solve the set of problems it was designed for. This applies for Hello World, and for Singleton.