Rationality Quotes April 2012

Oscar_Cunningham

Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules:

Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
Do not quote yourself
Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB
No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules:

Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
Do not quote yourself
Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB
No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.

It means nothing, although Greg Egan is quite impressed by it. Sad but true: Someone with an IQ of, say, 90 can be trained to operate a Turing machine, but will in all probability never understand matrix calculus. The belief that Turing-complete = understanding-complete is false. It just isn't stupid.

It means you could, in theory, run an AI on them (slowly).

5komponisto14y

It doesn't mean nothing; it means that people (like machines) can be taught to do things without understanding them. (They can also be taught to understand, provided you reduce understanding to Turing-machine computations, which is harder. "Understanding that 1+1 = 2" is not the same thing as being able to output "2" to the query "1+1=".)

3Elithrion14y

I would imagine that he can be taught matrix calculus, given sufficient desire (on his and the teachers' parts), teaching skill, and time. I'm not sure if in practice it is possible to muster enough desire or time to do it, but I do think that understanding is something that can theoretically be taught to anyone who can perform the mechanical calculations.

7

Rationality Quotes April 2012

7

7

7

Rationality Quotes April 2012

7

7