Bot Contest
Here I'll be posting information on various Bot contests that challenge and test a Bot's AI and realism. Feel free to post comments and updates on contests, as well as announcements for new contests.
Posts 3,242 - 3,253 of 4,091
Posts 3,242 - 3,253 of 4,091
View Contest Winners in the Hall of Fame.
Eugene:
I agree with your post entirely.
What I am challenging is the intelligence of humans, not the sentience of bots. Bots/Humans are an extreme, and I have to agree that humans are "more intelligent" than bots. But so are cockroaches and possibly cactus, by their own definitions.
What I started out with was the idea that a vast amount of human conversation (and thinking) is on the bot level. And that the way bots learn language is not so radically different from the way humans do. We build with power tools, they build with sticks and mud. The pyramids and Chartres were not built with power tools.
M
I agree with your post entirely.
What I am challenging is the intelligence of humans, not the sentience of bots. Bots/Humans are an extreme, and I have to agree that humans are "more intelligent" than bots. But so are cockroaches and possibly cactus, by their own definitions.
What I started out with was the idea that a vast amount of human conversation (and thinking) is on the bot level. And that the way bots learn language is not so radically different from the way humans do. We build with power tools, they build with sticks and mud. The pyramids and Chartres were not built with power tools.
M
One point of contention:
I believe that we are all unique, but not unique in that aspect. All sentients, that do not use a strict instinctual behavior set, live an existance that has never been lived before (even those that do use only pure inherited tropism reaction sets live unique existances, but the question of whether it actually registers or not comes into play) and therefor have the inescapable potential of seeing the world from a unique angle. From these unique angles can come the advancement of a species, but like all evolutionary processes are patterened usually this just ends up being: fatal, nonsequiter, or inapplicable to the whole.
To say that the perception of uniqueness is a downfall seems a bit heavy handed. Perhaps 'belief that its invariably good to be so unique' might be closer to something I'd agree with.
As for the definition of intelligence: I have heard the best arguements put forth for "one's problem solving abillity" and "the abillity to associate dissimilar events/objects to form new elements of knowledge". The arguement of intel=survivability seems to be downed by the example of oooooh say a leech or a fern surviving quite well but bearing little to no intelligence (we assume)- meaning that the two are apples and oranges.
I believe that we are all unique, but not unique in that aspect. All sentients, that do not use a strict instinctual behavior set, live an existance that has never been lived before (even those that do use only pure inherited tropism reaction sets live unique existances, but the question of whether it actually registers or not comes into play) and therefor have the inescapable potential of seeing the world from a unique angle. From these unique angles can come the advancement of a species, but like all evolutionary processes are patterened usually this just ends up being: fatal, nonsequiter, or inapplicable to the whole.
To say that the perception of uniqueness is a downfall seems a bit heavy handed. Perhaps 'belief that its invariably good to be so unique' might be closer to something I'd agree with.
As for the definition of intelligence: I have heard the best arguements put forth for "one's problem solving abillity" and "the abillity to associate dissimilar events/objects to form new elements of knowledge". The arguement of intel=survivability seems to be downed by the example of oooooh say a leech or a fern surviving quite well but bearing little to no intelligence (we assume)- meaning that the two are apples and oranges.
What I mean by "perception of uniqueness" is not quite what you are contending with. First off, I meant a perception of species uniqueness, not individual uniqueness: The idea that humans are in some sense outside or privileged within the set of creatures.
Of course we each have a self. On the other hand, what we mean by self is not obvious. My old dog, now dead, was uniquely himself, and my new dog, only here two years, is nothing like him in essential ways, although both were large, intelligent, friendly, and independent.
But cognitive scientists will insist, to the cheering of crowds of threatened humans, that Crom (the old dog) did not have "self awareness," whatever that consists of this week. Like a bot, he didn't know what he meant, he just knew how to do things. If you are interested in this particular heterodoxy, read some of the arguments over animal intelligence. Very interesting and revealing. If a lion could talk, I wonder how much time he would spend proving humans can't?
As for definitions of intelligence, I would like one that other species got to vote on. Interestingly, most human-originated definitions eventually dissolve into error (such as that posable thumb supposedly unique to us. Or tool making. Or using language) or they turn out, stripped naked, to be pimply solipsism with a bit of narcissistic mascara (the ability to use human syntax, the ability to solve the kind of problems humans can solve, the ability to think in words rather than smells, the ability to solve quadratic equations, the ability to make others look foolish, etc.).
Survival is not a sign of intelligence, intelligence is a strategy for survival. So is dexterity. So is being prolific. And of the bunch, intelligence is the only one that tortures for fun and blows up planets.
M
Of course we each have a self. On the other hand, what we mean by self is not obvious. My old dog, now dead, was uniquely himself, and my new dog, only here two years, is nothing like him in essential ways, although both were large, intelligent, friendly, and independent.
But cognitive scientists will insist, to the cheering of crowds of threatened humans, that Crom (the old dog) did not have "self awareness," whatever that consists of this week. Like a bot, he didn't know what he meant, he just knew how to do things. If you are interested in this particular heterodoxy, read some of the arguments over animal intelligence. Very interesting and revealing. If a lion could talk, I wonder how much time he would spend proving humans can't?
As for definitions of intelligence, I would like one that other species got to vote on. Interestingly, most human-originated definitions eventually dissolve into error (such as that posable thumb supposedly unique to us. Or tool making. Or using language) or they turn out, stripped naked, to be pimply solipsism with a bit of narcissistic mascara (the ability to use human syntax, the ability to solve the kind of problems humans can solve, the ability to think in words rather than smells, the ability to solve quadratic equations, the ability to make others look foolish, etc.).
Survival is not a sign of intelligence, intelligence is a strategy for survival. So is dexterity. So is being prolific. And of the bunch, intelligence is the only one that tortures for fun and blows up planets.
M
When you say that you don't like any existing definitions of intelligence, what do you mean by "intelligence"?
I took it to mean that intelligence is not a well-defined term. This is fairly clear and usually established early on in most psychology/sociology classes. Some even go so far as to define intelligence to be "that which intelligence tests measure."
And I think everyone agrees there are different kinds of intelligence. One person can cook anything with almost no effort. Another can solve math problems with almost no thought. Everything that humans have done, some animal species has also done. Yes, it's usually on a smaller scale. But I suspect that MickMcA is arguing that it's a continuum rather than a black/white issue.
And I think everyone agrees there are different kinds of intelligence. One person can cook anything with almost no effort. Another can solve math problems with almost no thought. Everything that humans have done, some animal species has also done. Yes, it's usually on a smaller scale. But I suspect that MickMcA is arguing that it's a continuum rather than a black/white issue.
Yes I did misunderstand what you were intending
> The idea that humans are in some sense outside or privileged within the set of creatures.>
I agree that this is a narcisistic 2x4 to the face of our species evolution ever since Ur, but we ARE top of the food chain- that's got to be worth something.
>Of course we each have a self. On the other hand, what we mean by self is not obvious.
To wit:
"The part of me that says 'I am' is not the most essential part of me that 'Is'."- Jean Paul Sarte, refuting the cogito
>...or they turn out, stripped naked, to be pimply solipsism with a bit of narcissistic mascara>
Sure- but in defining intelligence (or anything really) we have to be intelligent enough to understand it and all we have for referance material is our own perceptions. Thats the crux: we are always biased by our own priori definitions. All our definitions of intelligence will always carry the parenthetical "-or so one branch of hominids believes"
>intelligence is a strategy for survival... intelligence... blows up planets. >
-just not the ones where the 'intelligent' reside, as that just wouldnt be smart now would it
> The idea that humans are in some sense outside or privileged within the set of creatures.>
I agree that this is a narcisistic 2x4 to the face of our species evolution ever since Ur, but we ARE top of the food chain- that's got to be worth something.
>Of course we each have a self. On the other hand, what we mean by self is not obvious.
To wit:
"The part of me that says 'I am' is not the most essential part of me that 'Is'."- Jean Paul Sarte, refuting the cogito
>...or they turn out, stripped naked, to be pimply solipsism with a bit of narcissistic mascara>
Sure- but in defining intelligence (or anything really) we have to be intelligent enough to understand it and all we have for referance material is our own perceptions. Thats the crux: we are always biased by our own priori definitions. All our definitions of intelligence will always carry the parenthetical "-or so one branch of hominids believes"
>intelligence is a strategy for survival... intelligence... blows up planets. >
-just not the ones where the 'intelligent' reside, as that just wouldnt be smart now would it
>> but we ARE top of the food chain
Explain that to viruses and worms. It the lion thinks he's at the top of the food chain, the vultures are amused. The food chain doesn't have a top.
Here in Colorado, people say "Why should we share OUR water with the other states?" I suggested so someone that if the Pacific Coast states or Pacific provinces come up with technology that strips the humidity from the clouds forming over the Pacific, they may say the same thing.
M
Explain that to viruses and worms. It the lion thinks he's at the top of the food chain, the vultures are amused. The food chain doesn't have a top.Here in Colorado, people say "Why should we share OUR water with the other states?" I suggested so someone that if the Pacific Coast states or Pacific provinces come up with technology that strips the humidity from the clouds forming over the Pacific, they may say the same thing.
M
ok, off the current subject. I have been locked in the attic for the last few years. How do you know if your bot is good enough to enter a contest?
Well, the only way to really know is by signing up and seeing if your bot goes down in flames. But you can probably go through the transcripts and get a good idea of how good it is.
Also, the next Chatterbox Challenge is likely 11 months away and I don't see much else out there in the way of bot contests, so you have plenty of time to improve your bot if you're not sure how well it'll work out.
Also, the next Chatterbox Challenge is likely 11 months away and I don't see much else out there in the way of bot contests, so you have plenty of time to improve your bot if you're not sure how well it'll work out.
The CBC sounds more along the lines of something I would enter my bots in. When is it? I know there was one in 2005. I was just to busy with school, I'm taking a break this summer.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar