Tomo Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 No, it's a robot. At least according to my lecturers.
Bryson Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Indeed. The accepted test for "intelligence" in machines is the Turing Test: Turing held that computers would in time be programmed to acquire abilities rivalling human intelligence. As part of his argument Turing put forward the idea of an 'imitation game', in which a human being and a computer would be interrogated under conditions where the interrogator would not know which was which, the communication being entirely by textual messages. Turing argued that if the interrogator could not distinguish them by questioning, then it would be unreasonable not to call the computer intelligent. Turing's 'imitation game' is now usually called 'the Turing test' for intelligence. I'd say the day that a light passes the test is a long way away.
Peter Tovey Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 A filament is a piece of tungsten that is unable to alter its behaviour when 'given' a certain voltage by a dimmer.In much the same way that a mover is a piece of equipment that is unable to alter its behaviour when given a certain set of intructions by a DMX stream?! Unless broken, a moving light will always respond to identical instructions in exactly the same way. It therefore displays no more intelligence than a rubber ball, which unless burst will always move along the same trajectory when kicked the same way. A truly intelligent light, which would have the ability to interpret its instructions and act upon them in what it considered to be the best way, would first have to be self-aware. I think it may be some time before that happens (if in fact it ever does). Perhaps we should just call them wagglies
Guest lightnix Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Look, it's Nodding Buckets (or Dancing Dustbins) and Waggly Mirrors, OK ? Although I usually just call them all "Movers" :blink: Edward de Bono (inventor of lateral thinking) once pointed out that the development of truly "intelligent" computers is a pointless quest, for if computers ever did achieve true intelligence, then they would also develop a sense of humour and we would never know if they were being serious or not :o
Brian Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 A truly intelligent light, which would have the ability to interpret its instructions and act upon them in what it considered to be the best way, would first have to be self-aware.Imagine the following conversation over cans... SM. Standby LX Cue 1LX. Standing by....SM. LX Cue 1 GO...SM. LX Cue 1 GO...SM. LX, where is cue 1?LX. Hi, VL10,000 unit 4 here. I'm sorry I can't be bothered to come on, this actor is not very good and it would be waste of my lamp life to light him.
colinmonk Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 A truly intelligent light, which would have the ability to interpret its instructionsSound to Light Function? They interpret the sounds they are hearing from the mic into movements and make up what they want to do, I know they arent particularly great at it - but they still interpret signals into movements. This arguement didnt start out as are they truly intelligent, although its a good arguement to battle out...
timmath Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 A truly intelligent light, which would have the ability to interpret its instructions and act upon them in what it considered to be the best way,Like a VL2/4 or an Icon? When using their native protocols they are serially fed commands and then figure out how to get there themselves. Does this count as intelligent? As it is the lamp itself which calulates the best route to the final position? regards Tim
Brian Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 As it is the lamp itself which calulates the best route to the final position?I think the key word here is 'calculate', a calculation is nothing more than a series of steps applied to a problem. Remember the old mechanical calculators?
Guest lightnix Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Check this out for a discussion on the definition of machine intelligence. Who knows, you might even want to join the forum
JMeG Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 calculation is nothing more than a series of steps applied to a problemIs this not exactly the same as with the human brain? It's just a chemical calculator at the end of the day. Jamie
gareth Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 calculation is nothing more than a series of steps applied to a problemIs this not exactly the same as with the human brain? It's just a chemical calculator at the end of the day. No, because if you give the human brain a certain combination of inputs it doesn't react in a particular, predictable way, whereas a machine (including a moving light) will always respond to the same set of input values in the same way.
JMeG Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 calculation is nothing more than a series of steps applied to a problemIs this not exactly the same as with the human brain? It's just a chemical calculator at the end of the day. No, because if you give the human brain a certain combination of inputs it doesn't react in a particular, predictable way, whereas a machine (including a moving light) will always respond to the same set of input values in the same way. I disagree. I think the human brain would act in the same way twice, it's just the inputs and outputs with a human are so complex it is really impossible to replicate a situation. That's all I'm saying on it, though... I'm stopping before we get into the business of the 'soul' of a human and is the brain the same as the mind yada yada... a little too deep for a thread concerning Macs and the like!! Jamie
Ike Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 A filament is a piece of tungsten that is unable to alter its behaviour when 'given' a certain voltage by a dimmer.In much the same way that a mover is a piece of equipment that is unable to alter its behaviour when given a certain set of intructions by a DMX stream?! This was what I was trying to say, the lamp reacts to the voltage put across it just as the mover does. Neither have the ability to chose how they react and so I would suggest that neither is more intelligent. Oh and if anyone was wondering, I haven't been on in a couple of days as my laptop is in leeds.
Ketil B Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 I disagree. I think the human brain would act in the same way twice, it's just the inputs and outputs with a human are so complex it is really impossible to replicate a situation. The brain is a Complex Adaptive System and all CAS change depending on the inputs. So if you could replicate the same inputs the output has a good chance of being different. A so-called "intelligent" light moves ect.. Because the algorithm contained in its program interprets the input data (DMX) in a cretin way. Now if you take the strong I.A. approach to intelligence (which I donÃt but it is interesting), that it is just an algorithm, but very complex one. You have to come to the conclusion that every algorithm is in some way self-aware.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.