Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 113.
        Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
                      Hosted by DH-Cologne
                       www.dhhumanist.org
                Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org




        Date: 2021-06-26 11:06:03+00:00
        From: maurizio lana <maurizio.lana@uniupo.it>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 35.112: an oppositional artificial intelligence?

Hi Willard

what you are searching for ("an artificial entity that would respond
to an articulated train of thought by derailing it in
such a way as possibly to be helpful, provocative, enlightening")
implies, i think, that the artificial intelligence be a true
intelligence (whatever it means), and one of high level: how
frequently a human true intelligence is really capable of derailing
a train thought in enlightening ways?

while what is under questioning by many is if the "artificial
intelligence" is an intelligence at all.

best
Maurizio



Il 26/06/21 11:37, Humanist ha scritto:


Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 35, No. 112.
Department of Digital Humanities, University of Cologne
Hosted by DH-Cologne
www.dhhumanist.org
Submit to: humanist@dhhumanist.org




Date: 2021-06-26 09:29:25+00:00
From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@mccarty.org.uk>
Subject: a (crazy?) idea

I've been looking for developments towards what I am calling an
"oppositional artificial intelligence", that is, an artificial entity
that would respond to an articulated train of thought by derailing it in
such a way as possibly to be helpful, provocative, enlightening. I would
think this best done by striking a balance between the intrinsically
machinic and the recognisably human. Its objective would NOT be to
imitate but to differ -- profoundly, perhaps, but intelligibly. It would
(I am guessing) be somewhat like DeepMind's AlphaGo Zero
(generating plays no human player has ever considered making)
but beyond the constraints of the gameboard.

The closest approximations I have been able to find in current work are
on 'generative adversarian nets', negotiation mechanisms, adversarial
AI -- and IBM's Project Debater. Observations on the embodied nature
of conversation notwithstanding, it seems to me that talking with a
distinctly otherwise-embodied machine would be part of the attraction.

Comments? Suggestions?

Yours,
WM
--
Willard McCarty,
Professor emeritus, King's College London;
Editor, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews;  Humanist
www.mccarty.org.uk


Giulio Regeni, Mohammed Mahmoud Street, Cairo
https://alwafd.news/images/thumbs/752/new/027f918bb62bf148193d5920ca67ded7.jpg
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-20395260

Maurizio Lana
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Università del Piemonte Orientale
piazza Roma 36 - 13100 Vercelli
tel. +39 347 7370925


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted
List posts to: humanist@dhhumanist.org
List info and archives at at: http://dhhumanist.org
Listmember interface at: http://dhhumanist.org/Restricted/
Subscribe at: http://dhhumanist.org/membership_form.php