{"id":131,"date":"2011-12-15T17:56:24","date_gmt":"2011-12-16T01:56:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/facingthesing.wpengine.com\/?p=131"},"modified":"2014-12-01T13:48:07","modified_gmt":"2014-12-01T21:48:07","slug":"playing-taboo-with-intelligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/intelligenceexplosion.com\/sv\/2011\/playing-taboo-with-intelligence\/","title":{"rendered":"Att spela Tabu med ”Intelligens”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tyv\u00e4rr \u00e4r denna artikel enbart tillg\u00e4nglig p\u00e5 English<\/a>, Fran\u00e7ais<\/a>, \u0440\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439<\/a>, Sloven\u010dina<\/a>, \u4e2d\u6587<\/a> och Italiano<\/a>.<\/p>

Eliezer Yudkowsky recounts<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Years ago when I was on a panel with Jaron Lanier<\/a>, he had offered some elaborate argument that no machine could be intelligent, because it was just a machine and to call it \u201cintelligent\u201d was therefore bad poetry, or something along those lines. Fed up, I finally snapped: \u201cDo you mean to say that if I write a computer program and that computer program rewrites itself and rewrites itself and builds its own nanotechnology and zips off to Alpha Centauri and builds its own Dyson Sphere, that computer program is not intelligent?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Much of the confusion about AI comes from disagreements about the meaning of \u201cintelligence.\u201d<\/p>\n

Let me clear things up with a parable<\/a>:<\/p>\n

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?<\/em><\/p>\n

Albert<\/span>: \u201cOf course it does. What kind of silly question is that? Every time I\u2019ve listened to a tree fall, it made a sound, so I\u2019ll guess that other trees falling also make sounds. I don\u2019t believe the world changes around when I\u2019m not looking.\u201d<\/p>\n

Barry<\/span>: \u201cWait a minute. If no one hears it, how can it be a sound?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Albert and Barry are not arguing about facts, but about definitions<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The first person is speaking as if \u201csound\u201d means acoustic vibrations in the air; the second person is speaking as if \u201csound\u201d means an auditory experience in a brain. If you ask \u201cAre there acoustic vibrations?\u201d or \u201cAre there auditory experiences?\u201d, the answer is at once obvious. And so the argument is really about the definition of the word \u201csound.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We need not argue about definitions. Wherever we might be using different meanings for words, we can cut to the chase by replacing<\/a> the confusing symbol<\/em> (a word) with its intended substance<\/em> (the meaning you intend).<\/p>\n

This is like playing the game Taboo<\/em><\/a> (by Hasbro). In Taboo<\/em>, you have to describe something to your partner without using a certain list of words<\/a>:<\/p>\n

For example, you might have to get your partner to say \u201cbaseball\u201d without using the words \u201csport,\u201d \u201cbat,\u201d \u201chit,\u201d \u201cpitch,\u201d \u201cbase,\u201d or, of course, \u201cbaseball.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This game is good practice for a discussion about AI. If two people notice they\u2019re using different definitions of \u201cintelligence,\u201d they don\u2019t need to argue about whose definition is \u201cright.\u201d They can taboo the word \u201cintelligence\u201d and talk about \u201canalytic ability\u201d or \u201cproblem-solving ability\u201d or whatever it is they mean by \u201cintelligence.\u201d Now they are closer to arguing about facts instead of definitions.<\/p>\n

Shane Legg once collected seventy-one definitions of intelligence.1<\/sup><\/a> Scanning through the definitions for commonly occurring features, he notes that people seem to think intelligence is:<\/p>\n