Alan Turing 1912-1954
In 1950 asked - Can Machines Think?
Turing changed that into the Turing Test
“Can Computers Understand Language?”
would have been better question to ask
Seminal Paper 1937
Turing Machines are abstract computational devices
TMs can be set up for any computation (Algorithm)
Universal TMs can be programmed for any TM
UTM is an abstract theoretical construct
Digital Computer is an implementation of UTM
Turing Test
Imitation GameAn interrogator, a man, and a woman
Object to guess which is the man
Changed to Turing Test An interrogator, a person, and a machine
Object to guess which is the machine
Common RulesInterrogator physically separated with no tellsInterrogator asks questions and then guessesThe man or machine may lie
Computer CapabilitiesBe a UTM
By 2000 have 10^9 storage capacity
Today achievable 10^7 storage capacity
Brain estimate 10^10 to 10^15 – no problem
Current speed adequate at 10^4 ips
Hang up is programming – OOPS I misread
Programming is a slow endeavor - key
Conceptualization of ProgramStart with a child programFormal education & “life” experiences
Evolution will adjust program & educationStructure of child program – DNAChanges – MutationsJudgment of developer – Natural selection
Include random element in learning
Initial Infant State
Either as simple as possible
Or a complete set of inferences built-inWith definitions and varied propositionsWell established-facts,Conjectures,Statements from authority, And a few others
Problems
Initial concept of building a set of inferences and weighted propositions broke down!
Developers wasted effort trying to win without honoring the underlying purpose
False sense of understanding the problem
Symbolic-manipulation is a poor fit for language and human experience
New Turing Test
In 2002, Kurzweil made a bet with Kapor
By 2029 a computer will pass the new test
3 judges, 4 entrants consisting of 1 computer, and 3 foils
Each judge talks with each entrant for 2 hrs
Judges rank each entrant by most human and if human or not
Kurzweil Argument
Test is about human-level performance
Computers will have vast knowledge bases
Prior to 2020 machines will run at 20*10^15
Software more difficult part
We will reverse engineer the brainEarly stages of replacing small parts
Developing an understanding of brain structure
Human emotional intelligence is part of the brain
Kapor Argument
Machines may get a perfect SAT scoreWill they be able to show synthesisWill they be able to show creativity
The key point is automated learning is not the same as experiential learning
Current AI systems will never get there
Schank’s Script ProgramSimulates the human ability to understand
stories. Humans can answer questions
about stories even if the information is not
explicitly stated in the story. A script is used
to set the framework of a story. A story is a
specific series of events related to a script.
The goal is to answer questions by makinglogical inferences based on general knowledge.
Schank’s Script Program
For example, a man goes into a restaurant
and orders a hamburger, when hamburger
arrives it is burnt and the man storms out of
the restaurant without paying the bill or
leaving a tip. Question did the man eat the
hamburger? Answer no – obvious to us but
not to programs. Good Inference!
Schank’s Claims
The claims for this program were overstated.
1) The program can literally understand the the story and provides answers to questions.
2) The program explains the human ability tounderstand the story and answer questionsabout it.
15
Searle’s Chinese Room
15
Searle’s Chinese Room
I am locked in a room and given a large
batch of Chinese writing. I do not know any
written or spoken Chinese. I am a given a
second batch of Chinese with a set of rules
that correlates the second batch with the
first batch. These rules are written in
English which I understand.
Searle’s Chinese Room
The rules enable to correlate one set of
formal symbols with another set of formal
symbols. By formal I mean that I able to
identify the symbols entirely by their shapes.
I am given a third batch of Chinese symbols
with some instructions in English that me to
correlate this batch with the other 2 batches.
Searle’s Chinese Room
These rules instruct me to give back certain
Chinese symbols with certain shapes in
response to certain shapes given me in the
third batch. The people who are giving me
all these symbols call the 1st batch a script,
the 2nd batch a story, the 3rd batch questions,
and what I give back is answers to the
questions.
Searle’s Claims
The man in the room does not understand
Chinese before the exercise and still doesn’t.
This shows that Schank’s program does not
understand the story. Claim 1 is debunked.
Since Schank’s claim 2 follows from claim 1,
claim 2 is also unlikely to be true.
Analysis of Searle’s Argument
Does the Chinese Room accurately depict a
computer system running Schank’s program?
Searle can change the description to debunk
any formal-symbol-manipulation program
That claims it understands in the same way
he debunked Schank’s script program.
Responses to Searle’s Argument
Searle lists 6 responses which I group into 3
It is the system that understands not the man
It is the behavior that matters because wecan not know the inner states of anyone
What if we put the system into a robot, etc
Links
Includes Searle’s updated argumenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
GREAT website “Can Computers Think?”http://www.macrovu.com/CCTGeneralInfo.html
Here is a doctoral thesis on CRhttp://members.aol.com/wutsamada/disserta.html
Pictures came from Phi-346 by Mike Bruno
