X-Message-Number: 8555
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 12:36:28 -0400
From: "John P. Pietrzak" <>
Subject: Re: Digital Shakespeare
References: <>

John K Clark wrote:
> 
> The task I gave you will certainly terminate and it doesn't have an
> infinite loop, I didn't ask for the last digit of PI, I asked for the
> trillionth and that's very finite. You've repeated that it's all
> quite simple so I will repeat, what is it?

The algorithm I gave you will certainly _not_ terminate, and does
calculate an accurate enough value of Pi, given enough time.  And I
do state, the process of following the steps in the algorithm is
simple, something most every human on the planet can do.

Look John, let's not waste words here:

1) Do you deny that the algorithm, given sufficient time, would provide
a value of Pi accurate to the trillionth digit?

2) Do you deny that the algorithm itself (those 15 lines of code) is
simple?

If the answer to these two are no, then it must be the case that you
base the complexity in generating the trillionth digit on the time
involved.  It would take a great deal of my time to come up with that
digit, if I even have enough time in my lifespan (given my current
computing facilities).  Does that mean, the task is complicated?
It is possible for something to be both simple _and_ big.

>         > Still, the real problem here is that you and I have a
>         > different definition of "simple".
> 
> I have no definition of "simplicity" or "complexity" just as I have
> none for "intelligence" and for the same reason, these things are
> best explained by example.

Ah, you must have fun talking to people. :)  (I can see it now: every
time you come up to someone to talk to them, you spend hours training
their neural net with examples so that your categories mesh with
theirs, before you can get your point across.)

> That's not to say definitions haven't been attempted, you're pushing
> the AIC measure of complexity, the Algorithmic Information Content
> (AIC) of a message string is the length of the smallest computer
> program that can produce the string, and that's just another way of
> asking how much the string can be compressed.

Unfortunately, that's not at all what I am pushing.  I'm talking
computability here, not information content.  It's true, I'm not
considering feasability of algorithms (which Thomas brought up
earlier).  The fact is, each and every digital processor simply
flips switches (to bring this discussion back to where it started).
I argue that the process of flipping a switch is simple, and
moreover, the process of flipping a series of switches in a particular
order is also simple.  I'm not trying to associate meaning with any
particular switch or series of switches, I'm just talking about the
process itself.

> [...] Accordingly, the gibberish a monkey produces by banging on a
> typewriter contains far more information than a Shakespeare play
> of the same length. This is almost the exact opposite of what we
> usually mean when we say something is complex. [...]

(BTW, remember that the AIC is a measure of the redundancy in the
string, not a measure of how much "meaning" it contains.  A play
by Shakespeare may be more compressible than a random string of
characters, but that's due to the fact that the information-bearing
portions of the string are multi-character sequences, whereas the
"information" contained in a random string is associated with each
character individually.  The AIC tells you something about the units
bearing information, but nothing about the actual information they
represent.)

>          >>Me:
>          >>In the end all Shakespeare did was put ASCII characters in
>          >>a sequence.
> 
>         >Absolutely not!  There is a great deal of difference between
>         >the sequences of characters originated from  Shakespeare and
>         >a random sequence of characters.
> 
> Interesting, it would have been even more interesting if you've given
> me some hint as to what those differences are.

Hint: attempt to parse these two strings (in English, please):

a) To be or not to be, that is the question.

b) poeyiupoaivbyrpoiewqiopzeuioprne8v23bvdfh

(Alright, I'll admit the second string is not quite random, my fingers
hit some keys more than others, but just pretend it's random for the
purpose of this test.  Thanks.)

>         >But what you can't do, is create a new (digital) computer
>         >which can do something that a previous computer couldn't
>         >possibly do.
> 
> You may not be able to build such a machine, but you might be able 
> to build a machine that could build a machine that could.

Nope, sorry, not possible.  If the Turing Machine holds over all
digital processors (which I believe is true), then no future digital
processor will ever escape the bounds of Turing.  No matter who builds
it.

>         >The concept of the Turing machine is powerful because it
>         >does place absolute limits on computability.
> 
> Yes, and I see no reason to think humans don't exist under the exact
> same limitations.

Ah, well, I agree with you here, but the proof of this will involve
showing that humans are, essentially, state machines.  (MASSIVELY
parallel state machines, but nonetheless, state machines.)  This may
take some doing.

>         >In my opinion, the way that you act is not a good indicator
>         >of your intelligence.
> 
> Then who in hell needs intelligence, it's a useless concept! I don't
> care if I'm dumb as dirt as long as I act in a smart way.

This is exactly the wall AI hit in the 70's.  Many programs were
written such that they acted in a smart way (Elisa, Shrdlu, Mycin,
various chess & checkers programs, etc.).  For a while, people believed
that they were intelligent.  Then, people generally came to believe
that they weren't intelligent.  These programs never stopped "acting
in a smart way", they still do today, but for some reason the majority
of people have decided that there is something missing in them.  Until
we understand what the "missing" part is, AI will continue to flounder.
 
> I've asked this question before but received no answer, since
> behavior can tell you nothing about intelligence why do you think
> Einstein was intelligent?

Let's see here; from what I know about the man, he lived to a relatively
old age in a modern society.  I believe he managed to get around from
his house to his place of work sufficiently well; he managed to feed
and clothe himself (so far as there was no active agent performing
these tasks for him); he would have needed to interact with other
humans in order to get his needs across (and this, I admit, could be
tested using the Turing Test, if the "interrogator" is interested in
doing so); and he managed to avoid being hit by cars, eaten by
predators, falling off a cliff or slipping into a river.  So far as
these things are actually true, I would consider Einstein to have
something I would call intelligence.  (You can see here what the effect
of being involved in Artificial Intelligence can do to a man's
definition of intelligence over time.)

[On tautologies]
>        >Your statement here is more of the form "X acts_like A
>        >implies X = A".
> 
> OK, so tell me, if something is moving swiftly is it swift?.

In so far as the phrase "moving swiftly" is equal to the adjective
"swift".  A flying bird can be moving swiftly and be swift.  A claw
on the bird's foot is, at the same time, moving swiftly.  Is that
claw, then, swift?  The worm being digested inside the bird's stomach
is also, at the same time, moving swiftly.  Is it a "swift worm"?

[Definitions of Intelligence]
> And yet you use the word "intelligently" every day, I don't think
> it's just a sound you make with your mouth like a burp, I have a
> hunch you mean something by it, even if you can't define it.

Indeed, I do use it often.  Most of the time, I use it in a social
context (i.e., people are intelligent when they do what I want them
to do, they are unintelligent when they don't do what I want them to
do -- in other words, the most common definition of the term).  When
I'm trying to be precise, however, I need to be more careful about
how I use the term, particularly when I'm trying to use it in an
objective manner.

>         >Eliza has passed the Turing Test a few times.
> 
> Yes, Eliza can pass the Turing Test if the tester is an utter moron,
> he would conclude that the program is as smart as he is, and in this
> case he's probably correct. Eliza wouldn't fool me, I guarantee it.

Hey, now, waitaminnit, you never told me there was a limit on who the
tester could be!  Please, define for me exactly, who can and cannot
be used as a tester for the Turing Test.


John

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8555