Robots VS Humans at Jeopardy

[ZeroAX]

Yeah, that's a clear "If A equals B and B equal C, then A equals C" statement. Any computer should get that.

Only if you turn them into variables, but no even then a computer couldn't understand it cause it comes through reasoning. Unless of course you bring up inheritance, where human inherits mammal characteristics, and since mammals have babies then humans will as well. But you still have to say it in a way the computer understands.

Anyway point is computers can't reason, and they will forever be dumb because of that. If a computer thinks that the Earth is flat, there would be no way for it to question it.

[jfrost]

Yeah, that's a clear "If A equals B and B equal C, then A equals C" statement. Any computer should get that.

Only if you turn them into variables, but no even then a computer couldn't understand it cause it comes through reasoning. Unless of course you bring up inheritance, where human inherits mammal characteristics, and since mammals have babies then humans will as well. But you still have to say it in a way the computer understands.

Anyway point is computers can't reason, and they will forever be dumb because of that. If a computer thinks that the Earth is flat, there would be no way for it to question it.

I really don't understand what you're getting at. You give two premises to the computer, he should be able to extract the conclusion from that. I don't know what you mean by "you have to turn them into variables". You established that humans are mammals and that mammals give birth to babies, there's not much more reasoning to be done. The computer here understands natural language; in a way you can say it "reasons".

[ZeroAX]

I really don't understand what you're getting at. You give two premises to the computer, he should be able to extract the conclusion from that. I don't know what you mean by "you have to turn them into variables". You established that humans are mammals and that mammals give birth to babies, there's not much more reasoning to be done. The computer here understands natural language; in a way you can say it "reasons".

Hm, I guess if you don't know about computers you can't understand where I'm coming from.

Let me give another example.

The heart is an organ. The flute is an organ. What do you think a computer would "understand" from that. Computers can't reason and of story. Computers can never question what they "know". If it was up to them the earth would still be considered flat.

[YoshiEgg25]

The heart is an organ. The flute is an organ.

The flute is a woodwind.

[ZeroAX]

The heart is an organ. The flute is an organ.

The flute is a woodwind.

well ok, my example makes sense in Greek (organ = instrument)

[Limewater]

Hm, I guess if you don't know about computers you can't understand where I'm coming from.

Let me give another example.

The heart is an organ. The flute is an organ. What do you think a computer would "understand" from that. Computers can't reason and of story. Computers can never question what they "know". If it was up to them the earth would still be considered flat.

Assuming this works in Greek (you'd know better than I would), this still doesn't make any sense.

If I did not know what a heart was, or what a flute was, or what an "organ" was, then, when presented with your statement, I would conclude that the heart and the flute belong to the set "organs." That is the logical conclusion. You aren't discussing reasoning skills here. You are discussing outside knowledge. There is no reason a computer could not be loaded with that information.

Don't forget, as well, that the ability to interpret ambiguous language is what makes Watson so neat.