Hacker News Reader

Maybe we reckon with the issue that "understand" doesn't mean anything in the absence of it's implications and we rephrase the question. What do you view as consequences of deciding that it "understands"?

View on HN

This might go with the question of whether the Turing Test is a valid measure of "intelligence". If we can't tell the difference between a machine understanding something and a person, is that all that is required?

There's a view that intelligence without context is meaningless. (You can't do pattern matching without definition of what your signal is -- and if you just use a trivial measure, like entropy, then white noise is the best signal!) So, you can't be generally intelligent. You can be great at a lot of things, but that means you have priors for those things, which inherently predisposes you against other priors. (Though there are of course basically infinite dimensions, in which you can have priors, but let's just assume some dimensions are more important than others.)

What we want is adaptability under goal permanence, meta-goals, usually called alignment. We want an intelligence that is very similar to us. And we like to talk a lot, and we can talk about everything, so we can represent our intelligence through talking, so a Turing test could be a great way to measure how human-similar two "intelligences" are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com