From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: How do computers fare on scholastic achievement tests?
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:21:04 GMT

f3w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Gellis) writes:
>Right now, of course, computers generally solve problems in an entirely
>different way than the way humans think.  They run through a problem by 
>making it considering all the reasonable (and sometimes just all) the
>possibilities and then running through them at ultrahigh speed.  That is
>why a computer can beat you at chess, it can simply ask itself "What are
>all the possibilities for the next four moves that can be made and what
>will leave me in the best situation, in terms of chess points" and it
>chooses the one that works best. 

	The 'smarter' chess programs (notn neccessarily better, though) 
use heuristics formed by studying the moves of human chess masters. This 
is generally true of expert systems - they learn by forming rules based 
on how smart humans solve the problem. 

>
>Even if you could make a critic out of a computer, you may still be leaving
>out what some people call the "real" issue.  Self-awareness.  Of course, it
>is hard to say where that kind of awareness begins.  Is a dog self-aware?
>You bet it is.  Is a mouse or a bird?  Probably.  What about a praying mantis?
>It hunts; it does not blindly follow pheremone instructions.  But is it aware
>of itself as a being? 

	I am confused as to how you determine this. As I understand it, no 
being can tell whether another one is self-aware. A computer can say, "Cogito 
ergo sum" - it is just doing what its processor tells it to do. A human 
can say "Cogito ergo sum" - it is just doing what its brain tells it to do.
It is blindly following its neurology and experience. 

>
>I would say that a
>really good test of intelligence/self-awareness would be to have a computer
>that could write a poem or story, or create a painting, and then tell you
>why it did certain things in that effort, and why it is a good or bad piece.
>This is not simply because these are creative efforts, but also because they
>are communicative efforts, and communication of this sort requires that the 
>creator is aware of itself in relationship to other beings.   

	Communication of this sort is not a test of self awareness. Let's say 
I had a program which:
1) Had variables representing its 'moods' and' emotions'
2) Ran through the paintings which you said you liked or disliked, and then 
   formed heuristics for judging
3) Ran threw a bunch of base images and modified them, using the heuristics 
   it had developed to make a painting which it thought you would like, 
   randomizing occaisionally using its mood and emotion variables
4) Explained its heuristics - which the final output fulfilled, and which it 
   did not

	But in general, no simulation is ever sufficient for those in search 
of self-awareness. A few objections that might be raised:
1) "It does not have an opinion of its own." 
	It is easy enough to supply it with a set of heuristics which 
represent its own opinion. 
2) "Its opinion is just what the programmer put in."
	Everyone's opinions are developed from their own nature and from 
the influence of other people. The programmer can have it import heuristics 
from what it concludes are other people's heuristics based on the average 
influence of those people on its 'emotion' variables (representing what it 
'thinks' of those people). 
3) "It is only doing what it is programmed to - it is not being creative."
	By definition it is only doing what it is programmed to - its 
programming *is* its opinions, thoughts, and ideas. It will *not* always 
give the same responses, because it develops new heuristics and its 
'emotion' variables will change. 

>
>Anyone know of good stories, by the way, where you have a "low" machine 
>intelligence?  The machine is awake and aware, and can do some things a
>trillion times faster than people, and it can understand spoken instructions,
>very complex ones, but in terms of a being it is only about as smart as,
>say, a Welsh terrier?

	I myself am fond of the scene in 2010 where SAL tried to decide 
which of several definitions of "phoenix" was appropriate to the mission 
it was being sent on. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | "There are more things in heaven and earth, 
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | Horatio, than are dreamt of in your 
Columbia University         | philosophy."