XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 1/24/2014 11:56 AM, David DeLaney wrote:   
   > On 2014-01-24, Doc O'Leary  wrote:   
   >> As I have posted in the AI newsgroups, you can easily set up a standard   
   >> for an AI driver.  Run this experiment: allow a person to drive a car   
   >> remotely using only a video camera, measuring their performance as you   
   >> reduce the resolution of said camera.  Then you pick a "minimum   
   >> acceptable" point for their ability to navigate the environment.  That's   
   >> your Turing Test for AI drivers, getting around with only a crappy web   
   >> cam as your input.   
   >>   
   >> Compare that to how Google and others are solving the problem and it is   
   >> easy to state unequivocally that AI is *not* being used.   
   >   
   > And I hope you were roundly mocked in the AI newsgroups as well? Why   
   _prevent_   
   > an AI from using anything other than the puny human sensorium as input?   
   What's   
   > your beef with radar, sonar, ultrasonics, microwaves, gyroscopic sensors   
   > (humans have fluidic similar things but they're not based on the same   
   > principle), electric-field sensors, radio, or other input channels?   
   >   
   > Show us an AI that thinks as well AS a human but not LIKE a human, because   
   the   
   > latter's gonna be a great deal more difficult.   
   >   
   Well, before we can do that we'd have to figure out HOW a human thinks.   
     THEN we'd have to find some way of quantifying _that_ so as to be able   
   to compare an AI to it.   
      
   --   
   The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,   
   hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with   
   methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate   
   wouldn't tolerate.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)