The saga of Hugh Loebner and his search for an intelligent bot has almost everything: Sex, lawsuits and feuding computer scientists. There's only one thing missing: Smart machines
Feb. 26, 2003 | All Hugh Loebner wanted to do was become world famous, eliminate all human toil, and get laid a lot. And he was willing to put up lots of good money to do so. He's a generous, fun-loving soul who likes to laugh, especially at himself. So why does everybody dislike him so much? Why does everybody give him such a hard time?
Actually, not everybody does dislike him. He is beloved among sex workers, of whose rights he is a tireless advocate. Loebner also has friends, or at least people willing to hang out with him for short intervals, among the eccentric group of self-tutored hackers and robot builders who participate in the annual competition for the Loebner Prize in artificial intelligence.
Since 1989 Loebner has spent, by his account, more than $200,000 and a thousand hours of unpaid time to hasten the arrival of intelligent machines. He has set aside a gold medal and $100,000 in cash for the creator of the first machine that can pass for human. In the meantime he gives out annual prizes for programs that come closest to a long-sought holy grail in the artificial intelligence community: passing the Turing test.
But Hugh Gene Loebner, a fast-talking hardware manufacturer who has a distracted air, a Ph.D. in sociology, and an intense devotion to what he calls WWS (wine, women and song), is assiduously avoided by virtually everybody who has helped him organize his contests over the past dozen years or so. He is considered pushy and unpleasant by some of his biggest fans. And he is anathema to the self-proclaimed leading lights of "real" A.I., who loathe Hugh Loebner with a passion that borders, ironically, on the irrational.
For example, MIT professor Marvin Minsky -- known by his disciples as the father of artificial intelligence -- calls Loebner's prize "obnoxious and stupid" and has offered a cash award of his own to anybody who can persuade Loebner to abolish his prize and go back to minding his own business. The mere mention of Loebner's name is sometimes enough to get the father of artificial intelligence talking about lawsuits.
<snip>
To win the Loebner competition, software programs must mimic human conversation. Such programs are known as "chatting robots" or, more often, "chatterbots" or simply "bots." But today's academic A.I. researchers consider the chatterbot approach simpleminded. The Loebner competition, they argue, isn't a real measure of progress in artificial intelligence but merely a "bot beauty contest." To mainstream researchers, Loebner is a self-aggrandizing fool and his contest is hokum: at best irrelevant and at worst a public disservice that encourages bad science.
Loebner contests are often farcical and Hugh Loebner does act foolishly. But the closer one looks at the history of the Loebner Prize, the more it appears that Loebner's real offense was showing up the biggest stars in "real" artificial intelligence as a bunch of phonies. Thirty years ago, Minsky and other A.I. researchers were declaring that the problem of artificial intelligence would be solved in less than a decade. But they were wrong, and every year the failure of computer programs to get anywhere close to winning the Loebner Prize underlines just how spectacularly off the mark they were.
Re:Artificial stupidity
« Reply #1 on: 2003-02-27 09:10:54 »
[rhinoceros] Here is the second part of the "Artificial stupidity" Salon article which touches on some issues with the Turing Test and how it is viewed by some Artificial Intelligence experts (or, more precisely, Intelligent Systems experts).
[rhinoceros 2] And while we are at it, there was also this intriguing interview of Richard Wallace in slashdot, the weird guy who created ALICEBOT, the Loebner's Prize winner incarnated by Futura in our IRC channel.
It sometimes seems to me that the brain is actually a very shitty computer. So why would you want to build a computer out of slimy, wet, broken, slow, hungry, tired neurons? I chose computer science over medical school because I don't have the stomach for those icky, bloody body parts. I prefer my technology clean and dry, thank you. Moreover, it could be the case that an electronic, silicon-based computer is more reliable, faster, more accurate, and cheaper.
I find myself agreeing with the Churchlands that the notion of consciousness belongs to "folk psychology" and that there may be no clear brain correlates for the ego, id, emotions as they are commonly classified, and so on. But to me that does not rule out the possibility of reducing the mind to a mathematical description, which is more or less independent of the underlying brain archiecture. That baby doesn't go out with the bathwater. A.I. is possible precisely because there is nothing special about the brain as a computer. In fact the brain is a shitty computer. The brain has to sleep, needs food, thinks about sex all the time. Useless!
I always say, if I wanted to build a computer from scratch, the very last material I would choose to work with is meat. I'll take transistors over meat any day. Human intelligence may even be a poor kludge of the intelligence algorithm on an organ that is basically a glorified animal eyeball. From an evolutionary standpoint, our supposedly wonderful cognitive skills are a very recent innovation. It should not be surprising if they are only poorly implemented in us, like the lung of the first mudfish. We can breathe the air of thought and imagination, but not that well yet.
And remember, no one has proved that our intelligence is a successful adaption, over the long term. It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created.
[rhino]"It sometimes seems to me that the brain is actually a very shitty computer...it could be the case that an electronic, silicon-based computer is more reliable, faster, more accurate, and cheaper...In fact the brain is a shitty computer. The brain has to sleep, needs food, thinks about sex all the time. Useless!"
[veridicus] The brain, the most complex thing in the known universe, is shitty, useless? And how much more so must be the creations, manifestations, or products of such a shitty, useless machine and its perceptions?
[rhino]"our supposedly wonderful cognitive skills are a very recent innovation. It should not be surprising if they are only poorly implemented in us..."
[veridicus] lol. maybe you should speak for yourself!
[rhino]"And remember, no one has proved that our intelligence is a successful adaption, over the long term."
[veridicus] Indeed. Your ranting and raving seems to be proving just the opposite.
"Scientia Est Potentia"
LinK BeKon -(DPSO)Liquid Chaoz
-- ____________________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.outgun.com
Re:Artificial stupidity
« Reply #4 on: 2003-02-27 15:59:37 »
[rhinoceros] Heh, I am not playful enough today to defend Richard Wallace's gems, Veridicus, but it was good to see you defend the lowly brain
...which, as Wallace said, "has to sleep, needs food, thinks about sex all the time. Useless!"
-------------------------- Original Message ------------------------- [rhino]"It sometimes seems to me that the brain is actually a very shitty computer...it could be the case that an electronic, silicon-based computer is more reliable, faster, more accurate, and cheaper...In fact the brain is a shitty computer. The brain has to sleep, needs food, thinks about sex all the time. Useless!"
[veridicus] The brain, the most complex thing in the known universe, is shitty, useless? And how much more so must be the creations, manifestations, or products of such a shitty, useless machine and its perceptions?
[rhino]"our supposedly wonderful cognitive skills are a very recent innovation. It should not be surprising if they are only poorly implemented in us..."
[veridicus] lol. maybe you should speak for yourself!
[rhino]"And remember, no one has proved that our intelligence is a successful adaption, over the long term."
[veridicus] Indeed. Your ranting and raving seems to be proving just the opposite. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
[veridicus] The brain, the most complex thing in the known universe, is shitty, useless? And how much more so must be the creations, manifestations, or products of such a shitty, useless machine and its perceptions?
[Bill] Interesting veridicus, but do you see how this is vanity in the extreem. Claiming to possess the most complex thing in the known Universe! Our lack of understanding of something does NOT mean it is the most complex in the Universe. You did use "known" which just shows how little we know, not the opposite. Just as the creations of this machine are no more than passing sparks of assembled patterns which have meaning only to us. Show me something this most complex thing in the known Universe has created that will last past our demise or have any meaning to anything outside of our species. Life, and our brains, are just a passing fancy in the scheme of things. Ahh, but at least we are important to ourselves.
As Rhino said - this adaptation of ours is too young for us to know if it will survive in future species on our planet. Indeed, if we kill ourselves with it, it will be the instrument of our destruction and proof that it is a poor adaption for long term DNA survival.
Best to you all Bill Roh
rhinoceros wrote:
>[rhinoceros] >Heh, I am not playful enough today to defend Richard Wallace's gems, Veridicus, but it was good to see you defend the lowly brain > >...which, as Wallace said, "has to sleep, needs food, thinks about sex all the time. Useless!" > > >-------------------------- Original Message ------------------------- >[rhino]"It sometimes seems to me that the brain is actually a very shitty computer...it could be the case that an electronic, silicon-based computer is more reliable, faster, more accurate, and cheaper...In fact the brain is a shitty computer. The brain has >to sleep, needs food, thinks about sex all the time. Useless!" > >[veridicus] The brain, the most complex thing in the known universe, is shitty, useless? And how much more so must be the creations, manifestations, or products of such a shitty, useless machine and its perceptions? > >[rhino]"our supposedly wonderful cognitive skills are a very recent innovation. It should not be surprising if they are only poorly implemented in us..." > >[veridicus] lol. maybe you should speak for yourself! > >[rhino]"And remember, no one has proved that our intelligence is a successful adaption, over the long term." > >[veridicus] Indeed. Your ranting and raving seems to be proving just the opposite. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >---- >This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. ><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=27939> >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> > > >
-- Reason - Vision - Empathy Tools for a healthy mind
> [Bill] Interesting veridicus, but do you see how this is vanity in the > extreem. Claiming to possess the most complex thing in the known > Universe! Our lack of understanding of something does NOT mean it is the > most complex in the Universe. You did use "known" which just shows how > little we know, not the opposite. Just as the creations of this machine > are no more than passing sparks of assembled patterns which have meaning > only to us. Show me something this most complex thing in the known > Universe has created that will last past our demise or have any meaning > to anything outside of our species. Life, and our brains, are just a > passing fancy in the scheme of things. Ahh, but at least we are > important to ourselves. > > As Rhino said - this adaptation of ours is too young for us to know if > it will survive in future species on our planet. Indeed, if we kill > ourselves with it, it will be the instrument of our destruction and > proof that it is a poor adaption for long term DNA survival. > > Best to you all > Bill Roh
--
Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
"No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!"
[Bill]Interesting veridicus, but do you see how this is vanity in the extreem. Claiming to possess the most complex thing in the known Universe! Our lack of understanding of something does NOT mean it is the most complex in the Universe. You did use "known" which just shows how little we know, not the opposite.
[veridicus] My assertion is not grounded in vanity. I do not see the brain as my possession much less take any credit for its existence. If we cannot judge complexity based on what we know, then how else can it be judged? What do we know of that is more complex than the brain? And all we will ever know and or create will be because of the brain.
[Bill}"Just as the creations of this machine are no more than passing sparks of assembled patterns which have meaning only to us. Show me something this most complex thing in the known Universe has created that will last past our demise or have any meaning to anything outside of our species."
[veridicus]Are you serious? You really believe that the actions of the human race have no consequence beyond ourselves? That type of thinking, if allowed to contaminate the majority, will certainly result in our collective decay.
[Bill]"Life, and our brains, are just a passing fancy in the scheme of things. Ahh, but at least we are important to ourselves."
[veridicus]"At least we are important to ourselves." You say this as if it is a bad thing. If humanity doesn't give a damn about humanity, if we see ourselves as useless vehicles of DNA transportation with no significance and no relationship with the universe as a whole, if we relegate ourselves and our lives to a meaningless, pointless existence, then we have most assuredly and by our own choosing sealed our final dark fate. "As you believe, so too shall you be."
[Bill]"As Rhino said - this adaptation of ours is too young for us to know if it will survive in future species on our planet.
[veridicus] Do you have children? When your child is born do you say, "well, this child of mine is too young for me to know if it will survive in the future. Its so small, and it can't do very much. Good God, it even has to eat and sleep! Shitty! USELESS!" Have you ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
[Bill]Indeed, if we kill ourselves with it, it will be the instrument of our destruction and proof that it is a poor adaption for long term DNA survival.
[veridicus]So you see, our fate lies within the brain and the choices we make with it. The instrument of our existence is, of course, the potential instrument of our destruction. As for the long term survival of DNA, what does that have to do with your life, really?
"Scientia Est Potentia"
LinK BeKon -(DPSO)Liquid Chaoz
-- ____________________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.outgun.com
>[Bill]Interesting veridicus, but do you see how this is vanity in >the extreem. Claiming to possess the most complex thing in the known Universe! Our lack of understanding of something does NOT mean it is the most complex in the Universe. You did use "known" which just shows how little we know, not the opposite. > >[veridicus] My assertion is not grounded in vanity. I do not see the brain as my possession much less take any credit for its existence. If we cannot judge complexity based on what we know, then how else can it be judged? What do we know of that is more complex than the brain? And all we will ever know and or create will be because of the brain. > > I'm razzing you for the most part here. I don't mean to say that you are vain, but that it is vain of mankind to associate himself with great complexity. And yes, complexity is subjective. BUT, at least one thing is more complex than the brain - well at least as far off in understanding - and that would be the Grand Unified Theory.
What do you think will come first: An understanding of the biological processes of the brain, or a grand unified theory? I'm holding out for the brain.
>[Bill}"Just as the creations of this machine are no more than passing sparks of assembled patterns which have meaning only to us. Show me something this most complex thing in the known >Universe has created that will last past our demise or have any >meaning to anything outside of our species." > >[veridicus]Are you serious? You really believe that the actions of the human race have no consequence beyond ourselves? That type of thinking, if allowed to contaminate the majority, will certainly result in our collective decay. > Why? Explain this to me so that I may improve and not contaminate the majority.
> >[Bill]"Life, and our brains, are just a passing fancy in the scheme of things. Ahh, but at least we are important to ourselves." > >[veridicus]"At least we are important to ourselves." You say this as if it is a bad thing. > I think it is neither a good ro bad thing - it just is.
> If humanity doesn't give a damn about humanity, if we see ourselves as useless vehicles of DNA transportation with no significance and no relationship with the universe as a whole, if we relegate ourselves and our lives to a meaningless, pointless existence, then we have most assuredly and by our own choosing sealed our final dark fate. "As you believe, so too shall you be." > Our signifigance is our DNA - which is our relationship to the Universe. Through my DNA I am related to just about every living thing on the planet. The connection is not a mental concoction - but a genuine "children of earth" connection. Humanity is synonomous to human DNA, we are nothing if not reproduction machines. Whatever point there is to existence, whatever meaning there is to exist, I make for myself. Reproduction is NOT meaningless - to say it is is to say that life itself is meaningless. I don't think you overvalue humanity, I think you undervalue DNA and try to seperate it from the essense of you.
> >[Bill]"As Rhino said - this adaptation of ours is too young for us to know if it will survive in future species on our planet. > >[veridicus] Do you have children? > Yes
> When your child is born do you say, "well, this child of mine is too young for me to know if it will survive in the future. Its so small, and it can't do very much. Good God, it even has to eat and sleep! Shitty! USELESS!" Have you ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy? > I have heard of self-fullfilling prophecy of course, but I have never thought the things you are thinking - about humanity or my children. I'm not suggesting that humanity should come to an end due to it's insignificance. I am not attaching an emotional value to the species remaining static. I am not suggesting that I don't love humanity. I am simply willing to nourish my child and help him gain the tools to live a healty, happy, free, life that includes his ability to reproduce our genes and compete for resources favorably.
Humanity is not my child - I am it's child. It is older than I. No person can direct humanity to their will, or train humanity. We are all, everyone of us together, the set called "humanity". It may succeed, it may fail.
> >[Bill]Indeed, if we kill ourselves with it, it will be the instrument of our destruction and proof that it is a poor adaption for long term DNA survival. > >[veridicus]So you see, our fate lies within the brain and the choices we make with it. > Or a big rock from space, or the inability of man to use his brain for reason as opposed to self aggrandization etc...
> The instrument of our existence is, of course, the potential instrument of our destruction. As for the long term survival of DNA, what does that have to do with your life, really? > Everything. The most important thing on this whole planet is my Son. The product of my loins. We would like to think of immortality being attainable through our memes, but the genes are the common method of attaining immortality. Wasn't the thrust of your point that we should work to improve humanity, that we should take a positive Human centered attitude? Wasn't there something about self fulfilling prophecy? You are your DNA, it's continued existence is what defines continued humanity. If you love your DNA, you by default, love humanity.
Best to you
-- Reason - Vision - Empathy Tools for a healthy mind
> And while we are at it, there was also this intriguing interview of Richard Wallace in slashdot, the weird guy who created ALICEBOT, the Loebner's Prize winner incarnated by Futura in our IRC channel. > > http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/26/0332225&mode=flat&tid =99 > > <snip> > > It sometimes seems to me that the brain is actually a very shitty computer. So why would you want to build a computer out of slimy, wet, broken, slow, hungry, tired neurons? I chose computer science over medical school because I don't have the stomach for those icky, bloody body parts. I prefer my technology clean and dry, thank you. Moreover, it could be the case that an electronic, silicon-based computer is more reliable, faster, more accurate, and cheaper.
I would say the evolution has fashioned something amazing out of mere meat.
The low level components the brain is made of appear pretty unimpressive - the speed of a nerve impulse is of the order of mere metres per second. However the massively parallel architecture is very impressive.
Andy Brice (dipping his toe back into the Virus mailing list to see if any interest value has returned)
[bill]What do you think will come first: An understanding of the biological processes of the brain, or a grand unified theory? I'm holding out for the brain.
[veridicus]I think a strictly biological understanding of the brain will be inadequate in an overall understanding of mental phenomena. As I have adamantly insisted before in this forum, a grand unified theory will be largely dependent on an understanding of consciousness that goes well beyond a simple biological understanding of brain physiology. A deeper understanding of consciousness will converge with a deeper understanding of quantum physics, and at this juncture the grand unified theory will manifest.
"..whatever the underlying condition of its manifestation, our universe does not exist unless it is realised or made real by us. Each one of us creates, or rather, co-creates his or her own reality - a reality which we can do no more than assume is the same for all."
"The suggestion is that a school of thought long extant in philosophical circles that all matter is conscious is correct, but it is only in a high frequency non-physical form that the conscious nature of energy becomes apparent.
In all probability it is conformity to an as yet unwritten physical law, that dictates energy in the fifth state cannot itself have a physical presence. I do not accept that idea that fifth state energy has the power to directly influence macroscopic matter, that is for example create or destroy macroscopic physical objects. The physical interaction is weak at a macroscopic level, and to be effective really needs to go through the highly developed amplifier and data storage device we call a brain. Since we are still only on the verge of understanding quantum physical law, a full understanding of a fifth state of energy that can alter space at a quantum level, most likely will remain out of reach for some time. However, this does not stop us from making some intelligent deductions about the probable qualities possessed by energy existent in this higher state, especially since we have an extensive knowledge of plasma physics, the forth state of matter / energy."
> [veridicus]Are you serious? You really believe that the actions of the human race have no consequence beyond ourselves? That type of thinking, if allowed to contaminate the majority, will certainly result in our collective decay. > [Bill]Why? Explain this to me so that I may improve and not contaminate the majority.
[veridicus2]Because each and every action we take has repercussions well beyond ourselves. If we abdicate the depth of our responsibility then we fall pray to the consequences of ignorance. The more value we give to our existence, the more value it will have.
[veridicus]As for the long term survival of DNA, what does that have to do with your life, really? > [Bill]Everything. The most important thing on this whole planet is my Son... If you love your DNA, you by default, love humanity.
[veridicus] I cannot honestly believe that you love a strand of nucleotides which you have most likely never seen or sensed in any real sense. To say that "if you love your DNA, you love humanity," seems to me so abstract, so far from real life that it becomes meaningless. You can honestly tell me that your love and value of humanity derives from DNA!!? Thats like saying you love people because you love amino acids. Does DNA actually have any bearing on the decisions you make in life and the meaning you find in it? You are correct in observing that the thrust of my point was that we should take a positive Human centered attitude, but I must disagree that this is synonymous with a DNA centered attitude.
Regards
-veridicus
"Scientia Est Potentia"
LinK BeKon -(DPSO)Liquid Chaoz
-- ____________________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.outgun.com
Author
Logged
