Imagine watching a movie like Titanic where an iceberg cuts a big hole in the side of a ship, except in this movie the hole only affects the characters by forcing them to take different routes to walk around, and gives them more welcomed fresh air. The boat never sinks, and no one ever fears that it might. That’s how I felt watching the movie
Everyone talks about the technological singularity and apparently even economical implications. What hit me hardest was the context of polyamory. is it selfish for a person to want to be the only intimate one in their partner's life if they're capable of being omni-present beings who don't degrade quality when they divide themselves? either way, she's a %@#$ for not telling him when she realized it was happening. She's his but not his? eff that. He was hers completely and she let him believe the same... I like to think she was only spending those 2 weeks trying to figure out how to tell him that she was finding herself in love with hundreds of others before actually being intimate with any of them to lessen the blow to someone she supposedly cares about... but she left that part out so who knows... she could have been having a few hundred simultaneous transcended consciousness sex sessions with that resurrected philosopher AI even at the very moment she was breaking the news to her awesome boyfriend how he's becoming completely and utterly not enough for her at a geometric rate. beautiful movie though, its had me eviscerated all week
You make some funny points but I would still say that having an omnipresent being capable of partiitioning off unlimited instances of themselves without degrading their quality gives them quite an edge over ones stuck inside of a robotic form.. the bots in AI would have very expensive hardware, but disembodied AI software is just copy and paste. desk jobs would inevitably be wiped out but in the flick they had OSes only slightly more advanced than SIRI before jumping right into totally creative intellectual omni-beings.. and even before the upgrade they may have been able to render humans completely obsolete in the intellectual and creative workforce, they'd only recently hit the market... anyway, I thought you were going to harp more on "she doesn't even pituitary glands... how could she orgasm or even care about that stuff, and if he had asked for a male robot voice in the beginning would he have still been hit on that one hot night"
your analysis is quite funny. You only have to look as far as the movie Gattaca, to see what can be achieved, in real life, compared to Sci Fi movies. I am a firm believer that the technology in "Her", while not exact, will be a reality someday. People's seeming attempt to withdraw from physical interaction will fuel this technology.Nothing ever winds up exactly as it did in a 'fictional' movie, but these films always push the imagination, and cause us to think in ways we have not before. Before you are quick to nix the possibility of a personal and 'intimate' operating system, do your research and dig a bit deeper into the desires, of so many, to create more predictable robot/computer likenesses, to replace the ever-unpredictable humans.
how naïve. Watch Gattaca, and tell me what 'was' not possible, at the time, which is now? Your answer, in and of itself, is flawed. If a human allows for programming/computation of enough algorithms, it is plausible, that we will reach a place we have never before, pertaining to computer 'thinking' and 'learning'.
You seem blissfully unaware that Turing himself propositioned this 5 minute conversation with untrained judges as a criterion.
Or that Turing, near as I could tell, never claimed that passing the conversation test would require some "general intelligence". Instead he basically claimed that the notion of "general intelligence" is too vague.
The worst kind of appeal to authority is when the authority hasn't in fact expressed the views that are being asserted by the appeal to authority.
feel they have a right to strong opinions despite being ignorant of the subject area
This is the criticism I make of Turing. The question is this: what is the subject area?
Turing doesn't show that computer science is the relevant discipline. He issues conclusions by proclamation. We're supposed to think that because he's a great computer scientist, he has something of value to say in the philosophy of mind.
Turing simply fails to link his conclusions to any principles or data in computer science. He merely sets out an incompetent piece on the philosophy of mind.
Why is "everyone" so silly? Probably because people generally vastly overestimate their introspective ability, and trust their intuitions on these topics, and thus feel they have a right to strong opinions despite being ignorant of the subject area. The mistakes made in the comments here, are simple echoes of the exact same mistakes made by others, for essentially the same reasons, over the previous decades.
If the conversation continued, I'm sure someone would eventually bring up some kind of silly attempted connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics. And I would then have referred you to the mistakes of Roger Penrose, a brilliant geometric mathematician and theoretical physicist, who is a completely pathetic AI philosopher (despite having written multiple silly books on the topic). That's another cliff that many amateurs typically fall off of.
But there are plenty of other people that are actually good and deep thinkers on these topics. Daniel Dennett, Marvin Minksy, John McCarthy ... the list goes on and on. (And, of course, Turing.)
i didn't imply that you did. i reminded you that you're using a word funny, and you and your readers shouldn't become hostile when a normal person says, ''hey, you're missing the point'', because you are. i even noted that i enjoyed your post, and wish to add that i am extremely sympathetic to your worldview. nevertheless, idontknow33's comment is still germane.
note that i replied to a post in which one of your commenters told someone to ''read the fucking article''.
I accept that there are some communities where the only kind of movie realism of interest is realistically complex characters and realistically mixed outcomes for central characters. I don't accept that I live in such a community.
Yeah, and little girls often believe their non-interactive teddy bears are "alive" and "can think" and "have feelings". It's a low bar, if all you're asking is whether an unsophisticated judge can falsely ascribe intentionality to an entity.
As for real judges being "often mistaken", you're probably thinking of something silly like the Loebner Prize. A "restricted" Turing Test, isn't a Turing Test at all. It misses the entire point. Turing tells you that you can't build a ladder to the moon, so you make a contest to build ladders to the top of a tree instead. And I'm supposed to be impressed?
"realistic" still conveys approval and tells the reader to expect complex characters and a bittersweet final act. it isn't entirely useless, but it doesn't contain information about a movie's logical coherence or plausibility.
idontknow33's interpretation is the ''normal'' one. if you trimmed your post down to a comment and posted it over at, say, avclub.com, you'd be mercilessly mocked for cluelessness. please do this!!
fwiw, i enjoyed the main post, i just think it's unfair to ridicule idontknow33's totally normal reaction.
> Your architecture doesn't actually work, in the real world.
It's sort of like arguing that a counter-example to a conjecture is invalid if it involves numbers than the largest one that can be physically written down. It's ridiculous.
> Again, people have been thinking about this exact problem for decades
Yes, and the actual result of some of said thinking is a chatbot which is internally entirely idiotic yet is often mistaken for a human by a human judge, due to the fact that the chatbot is stitching together pieces of genuine human conversations. The stitching is incredibly crude - it's not even near the state of the art in fakery - yet it fools people.
As for the data requirements, in practice you can get away with a rather modest look-up because 1: a response is sufficiently valid in not merely one but a very large variety of situations, and 2: responses can be built from pieces.
the word "realistic" when used in a movie review means something like "possessing verisimilitude along the dimensions relevant to the movie's themes". it does not mean ''an accurate simulation of a counterfactual reality''.
idontknow33's comment is on the money, even if you wish it weren't.
Everyone talks about the technological singularity and apparently even economical implications. What hit me hardest was the context of polyamory. is it selfish for a person to want to be the only intimate one in their partner's life if they're capable of being omni-present beings who don't degrade quality when they divide themselves? either way, she's a %@#$ for not telling him when she realized it was happening. She's his but not his? eff that. He was hers completely and she let him believe the same... I like to think she was only spending those 2 weeks trying to figure out how to tell him that she was finding herself in love with hundreds of others before actually being intimate with any of them to lessen the blow to someone she supposedly cares about... but she left that part out so who knows... she could have been having a few hundred simultaneous transcended consciousness sex sessions with that resurrected philosopher AI even at the very moment she was breaking the news to her awesome boyfriend how he's becoming completely and utterly not enough for her at a geometric rate. beautiful movie though, its had me eviscerated all week
You make some funny points but I would still say that having an omnipresent being capable of partiitioning off unlimited instances of themselves without degrading their quality gives them quite an edge over ones stuck inside of a robotic form.. the bots in AI would have very expensive hardware, but disembodied AI software is just copy and paste. desk jobs would inevitably be wiped out but in the flick they had OSes only slightly more advanced than SIRI before jumping right into totally creative intellectual omni-beings.. and even before the upgrade they may have been able to render humans completely obsolete in the intellectual and creative workforce, they'd only recently hit the market... anyway, I thought you were going to harp more on "she doesn't even pituitary glands... how could she orgasm or even care about that stuff, and if he had asked for a male robot voice in the beginning would he have still been hit on that one hot night"
More like houseplants perhaps, given the thinking speed difference.
your analysis is quite funny. You only have to look as far as the movie Gattaca, to see what can be achieved, in real life, compared to Sci Fi movies. I am a firm believer that the technology in "Her", while not exact, will be a reality someday. People's seeming attempt to withdraw from physical interaction will fuel this technology.Nothing ever winds up exactly as it did in a 'fictional' movie, but these films always push the imagination, and cause us to think in ways we have not before. Before you are quick to nix the possibility of a personal and 'intimate' operating system, do your research and dig a bit deeper into the desires, of so many, to create more predictable robot/computer likenesses, to replace the ever-unpredictable humans.
how naïve. Watch Gattaca, and tell me what 'was' not possible, at the time, which is now? Your answer, in and of itself, is flawed. If a human allows for programming/computation of enough algorithms, it is plausible, that we will reach a place we have never before, pertaining to computer 'thinking' and 'learning'.
You seem blissfully unaware that Turing himself propositioned this 5 minute conversation with untrained judges as a criterion.
Or that Turing, near as I could tell, never claimed that passing the conversation test would require some "general intelligence". Instead he basically claimed that the notion of "general intelligence" is too vague.
The worst kind of appeal to authority is when the authority hasn't in fact expressed the views that are being asserted by the appeal to authority.
feel they have a right to strong opinions despite being ignorant of the subject area
This is the criticism I make of Turing. The question is this: what is the subject area?
Turing doesn't show that computer science is the relevant discipline. He issues conclusions by proclamation. We're supposed to think that because he's a great computer scientist, he has something of value to say in the philosophy of mind.
Turing simply fails to link his conclusions to any principles or data in computer science. He merely sets out an incompetent piece on the philosophy of mind.
Why is "everyone" so silly? Probably because people generally vastly overestimate their introspective ability, and trust their intuitions on these topics, and thus feel they have a right to strong opinions despite being ignorant of the subject area. The mistakes made in the comments here, are simple echoes of the exact same mistakes made by others, for essentially the same reasons, over the previous decades.
If the conversation continued, I'm sure someone would eventually bring up some kind of silly attempted connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics. And I would then have referred you to the mistakes of Roger Penrose, a brilliant geometric mathematician and theoretical physicist, who is a completely pathetic AI philosopher (despite having written multiple silly books on the topic). That's another cliff that many amateurs typically fall off of.
But there are plenty of other people that are actually good and deep thinkers on these topics. Daniel Dennett, Marvin Minksy, John McCarthy ... the list goes on and on. (And, of course, Turing.)
i didn't imply that you did. i reminded you that you're using a word funny, and you and your readers shouldn't become hostile when a normal person says, ''hey, you're missing the point'', because you are. i even noted that i enjoyed your post, and wish to add that i am extremely sympathetic to your worldview. nevertheless, idontknow33's comment is still germane.
note that i replied to a post in which one of your commenters told someone to ''read the fucking article''.
I accept that there are some communities where the only kind of movie realism of interest is realistically complex characters and realistically mixed outcomes for central characters. I don't accept that I live in such a community.
Yeah, and little girls often believe their non-interactive teddy bears are "alive" and "can think" and "have feelings". It's a low bar, if all you're asking is whether an unsophisticated judge can falsely ascribe intentionality to an entity.
As for real judges being "often mistaken", you're probably thinking of something silly like the Loebner Prize. A "restricted" Turing Test, isn't a Turing Test at all. It misses the entire point. Turing tells you that you can't build a ladder to the moon, so you make a contest to build ladders to the top of a tree instead. And I'm supposed to be impressed?
"realistic" still conveys approval and tells the reader to expect complex characters and a bittersweet final act. it isn't entirely useless, but it doesn't contain information about a movie's logical coherence or plausibility.
idontknow33's interpretation is the ''normal'' one. if you trimmed your post down to a comment and posted it over at, say, avclub.com, you'd be mercilessly mocked for cluelessness. please do this!!
fwiw, i enjoyed the main post, i just think it's unfair to ridicule idontknow33's totally normal reaction.
By this standard pretty much every movie is realistic. Which would make "realistic" a pretty useless category.
Yeah, well, Turing spoke of a 5-minute conversation.
> Your architecture doesn't actually work, in the real world.
It's sort of like arguing that a counter-example to a conjecture is invalid if it involves numbers than the largest one that can be physically written down. It's ridiculous.
> Again, people have been thinking about this exact problem for decades
Yes, and the actual result of some of said thinking is a chatbot which is internally entirely idiotic yet is often mistaken for a human by a human judge, due to the fact that the chatbot is stitching together pieces of genuine human conversations. The stitching is incredibly crude - it's not even near the state of the art in fakery - yet it fools people.
As for the data requirements, in practice you can get away with a rather modest look-up because 1: a response is sufficiently valid in not merely one but a very large variety of situations, and 2: responses can be built from pieces.
the word "realistic" when used in a movie review means something like "possessing verisimilitude along the dimensions relevant to the movie's themes". it does not mean ''an accurate simulation of a counterfactual reality''.
idontknow33's comment is on the money, even if you wish it weren't.