> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [email@example.com] wrote:
> >I'm not sure how you're defining "AI" here, but such a process certainly
> >wouldn't be "intelligent". It would not be creative, self-modelling, or
> >capable of representing general content. It wouldn't have goals or a
> >world-model except in the same way a thermostat does. Deep Blue doesn't
> >know that it knows.
> Most arguments against AI start by
> claiming that humans have wonderful facilities which computers don't, when
> they have absolutely no proof.
> Can you prove that you can do all those things you're claiming that the
> computer can't do? If not, why should I accept this argument?
Not "the computer". Deep Blue. I'm listing a set of features I talked about in "Coding a Transhuman AI". Obviously I think computers can be made to do them. Equally obviously, these are particular features that we have and Deep Blue doesn't, just like we don't have built-in billion-move chess-extrapolation trees.
-- firstname.lastname@example.org Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://pobox.com/~sentience/tmol-faq/meaningoflife.html Running on BeOS Typing in Dvorak Programming with Patterns Voting for Libertarians Heading for Singularity There Is A Better Way