am I wrong? — GLEN willows

In more ways than one regarding what you think and believe about our 'conversation' here. You're confusing what I've said with what others have said. I've no time for this.

Be well.

Would that be true intelligence, though, or an example of Searles Chinese Room? — RogueAI

Intelligence. I don't agree with Searle on the Chinese room.

I can imagine a computer that isn't conscious easily passing a Turing Test and giving intelligent answers to questions. Would that be true intelligence, though, or an example of Searles Chinese Room? — RogueAI

The modifer "true" doesn't function, or add anything meaningful, in your sentence. By definition if an entity passes the Turing Test, then that entity functions indistinguishably from other intelligent humans to intelligent human observers. That the entity "is not conscious" implies merely that the entity is not interacting with its environment by generating a phenomenal self-model as the 'experiential focus' (or axis) of phenomenal continuously-updating environment / world-model within which it is an embodied agent (with a "theory of mind"). Like, for instance, an active, high functioning sleepwalker, no? :chin:

The modifer "true" doesn't function, or add anything meaningful, in your sentence. By definition if an entity passes the Turing Test, then that entity functions indistinguishably from other intelligent humans to intelligent human observers. That the entity "is not conscious" implies merely that the entity is not interacting with its environment by generating a phenomenal self-model as the 'experiential focus' (or axis) of phenomenal continuously-updating environment / world-model within which it is an embodied agent (with a "theory of mind"). Like, for instance, an active, high functioning sleepwalker, no? — 180 Proof

By "true" intelligence, I mean actually intelligent, as opposed to mimicking intelligence.

actually intelligent, as opposed to mimicring intelligence. — RogueAI

Can you further explain this? What is "mimicking" intelligence mean.

Can you further explain this? What is "mimicking" intelligence mean. — Jackson

Sure. Suppose you have a computer with no programming at all. All the switching operations inside it happen randomly. It is possible, though incredibly unlikely, that that computer can pass a turing test, just by random chance. It would seemingly be intelligent, but it wouldn't really be intelligent.

It would seemingly be intelligent, but it wouldn't really be intelligent. — RogueAI

What if an artificial system can be productive, isn't that real intelligence?

Further: The distinction between natural and artificial is the problem.

Well, it's astronomically unlikely such an "incredibly unlikely" machine would pass the Turing Test a second time, thus it would be found out that's it's a dumb paper weight.

What if an artificial system can be productive, isn't that real intelligence? — Jackson

There is some possible world where a computer randomly puts words together and produces great works of literature. Is that artificial system intelligent? I don't think so.

Well, it's astronomically unlikely such an "incredibly unlikely" machine would pass the Turing Test twice, thus it would be found out that's it's a dumb paper weight. — 180 Proof

The unlikelihood isn't the issue. The issue is that we're getting an intelligent response from a "dumb" system (a system that produces things randomly). The response (passing the Turing Test) is seemingly intelligent, but fundamentally, the system just produces gibberish. It just happens that the gibberish it produces matches the gibberish we expect. That's not intelligence.

There is some possible world where a computer randomly puts words together and produces great works of literature. Is that artificial system intelligent? I don't think so. — RogueAI

Okay, I was thinking of deliberately constructed machines.

One data point is not determinate. It's a hasty generalization to call an isolated event – an anomaly – a pattern.

One data point is not determinate. It's a hasty generalization to call an isolated event – an anomaly – a pattern. — 180 Proof

It's possible a computer producing random words could pass the Turing Test a million times in a row. It's incredibly unlikely, but there's a possible ETA [world] where that happens.

Casinos must love you, Rogue. :smirk:

But there is no program guiding it. — Hillary

We are free, but guided by some programme alright. Instinctual fears and desires are an example of it.