Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There's a rational semantics (/hermaneutic) logic in that if they did not share our "peculiarities" we would not even be able to recognize them as intelligent* and certainly could not communicate with them any better than we can with an automobile, powerplant, or transistor (or a tree for that matter).

My research in the mid 80s was in this area, including working on the Cyc project, though I was ultimately more interested in implications of proprioceptive and related embodied learning in the construction of interaction between people, people and animals, and ultimately therefore people & robots. This implicit / commonsense consensus knowledge is likely the bulk of what we know, and certainly is fundamental to our ability to communicate.

* the current nonsense about "intelligent" with current computer programs is an inexcusable marketing sin and is invariably a form paradolia.



if they did not share our "peculiarities" we would not even be able to recognize them as intelligent and certainly could not communicate with them any better than we can with an automobile, powerplant, or transistor*

That doesn't seem quite right. A 1980's automobile, powerplant, or transistor couldn't make mathematical inferences, guess what you might want to hear, then compose a novel poem which makes sense in a requested style.

the current nonsense about "intelligent" with current computer programs is an inexcusable marketing sin and is invariably a form paradolia

I don't think this comment is going to age well.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: