Alan Turing 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 Game An 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 Rules Interrogator physically separated with no tells Interrogator asks questions and then guesses The man or machine may lie

Computer Capabilities Be 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 Program Start with a child program Formal education & “life” experiences Evolution will adjust program & education Structure of child program – DNA Changes – Mutations Judgment of developer – Natural selection Include random element in learning

Initial Infant State Either as simple as possible Or a complete set of inferences built-in With definitions and varied propositions Well 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 brain Early 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 score Will they be able to show synthesis Will 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 Program Simulates 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 making logical 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 to understand the story and answer questions about 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 1 st batch a script, the 2 nd batch a story, the 3 rd 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 we can not know the inner states of anyone What if we put the system into a robot, etc

Links Includes Searle’s updated argument GREAT website “Can Computers Think?” Here is a doctoral thesis on CR Pictures came from Phi-346 by Mike Bruno