• intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    Sounds to me like that sufficiently large dictionary would be intelligent. Like, a dictionary that can produce the correct response to every thing said sounds like a system that can produce the correct response to any thing said. Like, that system could advise you on your career or invent machines or whatever.

    • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      So would a book could be considered intelligent if it was large enough to contain the answer to any possible question? Or maybe the search tool that simply matches your input to the output the book provides, would that be intelligence?

      To me, something can’t be considered intelligent if it lacks the ability to learn.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Definitely. If you have a search tool that maps situational data to the perfect response, like it works out well every time, your search tool is intelligent. Period.

        • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          So given a large enough text file, the ctrl+f search box in Notepad would constitute as being intelligent in your opinion?

      • aname@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes, but you could argue that human brain is a large pattern matcher with a dictionary. What separates human intelligence from machine intelligence?

          • aname@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yes, but we have no strict or clear s ientific definition of what makes humans intelligent or what intelligence even is.

            Humans are intelligent and machines are not “just because”

              • aname@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yes, but we also have to draw a line somewhere. You could just as well turn any non-random based computer program into a huge hashtable, yet the intelligence arises from somewhere. There is no magic to human intelligence, unless you start believing in the soul or something.

                  • aname@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Yes but you are missing my point. We have no way of measuring if a human is intelligent. The whole intelligence might just as well be an illusion.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Any hash map you or I have ever seen is not very intelligent, possibly not at all. But the infinitely large hash map we’re talking of is different. It can handle any possible situation it encounters. That’s part of its definition.

            Our hashmaps — the finite hashmaps we use to store shipping addresses and candy crush preferences — would be torn to shreds in the real world. But not this infinite hashmap that maps all possible inputs to all possible outputs. It’s a one-layer network but it’s really wide. It’s as wide as the universe of possibility, at least.

      • Kit Sorens@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yet language and abstraction are the core of intelligence. You cannot have intelligence without 2 way communication, and if anything, your brain contains exactly that dictionary you describe. Ask any verbal autistic person, and 90% of their conversations are scripted to a fault. However, there’s another component to intelligence that the Turing Test just scrapes against. I’m not philosophical enough to identify it, but it seems like the turing test is looking for lightning by listening for rumbling that might mean thunder.

          • 0ops@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            This is what it comes down to. Until we agree on a testable definition of “intelligence” (or sentience, sapience, consciousness or just about any descriptor of human thought), it’s not really science. Even in nature, what we might consider intelligence manifests in different organisms in different ways.

            We could assume that when people say intelligence they mean human-like intelligence. That might be narrow enough to test, but you’d probably still end up failing some humans and passing some trained models

              • 0ops@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                You’re right, it’s very much context dependent, and I appreciate your incite on how this clash between psychology and computer science muddies the terms. As a CS guy myself who’s just dipping my toes into NN’s, I lean toward the psychology definition, where intelligence is measured by behavior.

                In an artificial neural network, the algorithms that wrangle data and build a model aren’t really what makes the decisions, they just build out the “body” (model, generator functions) and “environment” (data format), so to speak. If anything that code is more comparable to DNA than any state of mind. Training on data is where the knowledge comes from, and by making connections the model can “reason” a good answer with the correlations it found. Those processes are vague enough that I don’t feel comfortable calling them algorithms, though. It’s pretty divorced from cold, hard code.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Nah, I think a hash map is intelligent if and definitely if it maps all possible inputs. Then it’s intelligent. Don’t overestimate your own information content there, homo sapiens. You assume there’s no problem that your mind cannot solve, which is a weak assumption given the infinity of problems that awaits your species.