Can you call a computer smart?

[TrueElements]

I mean we gave a computer everything it knows right??
But at times we use it to find information we lack.
It can even solve problems we cant, but who is to think, the people who taught it or the computer itself?

[Neutral]

define smart

[Mime Taxidermy]

A computer is not "smart" it just does what it is told to do through binary code. The intelligence comes from the programmers who make the operating system for the computer.

Edit: Not really from the programmers of the operating system, more so the people who created the language in which the operating system was programmed in. With C++, you can make the system do anything as long as you have the skill to make it do so. With a language I guess you could make a computer have artificial intelligence, but not mental alertness.

[TrueElements]

define smart

showing mental alertness and calculation and resourcefulness


it shows the last 2 abit not sure about that 1st one.
I mean a computer can tell what states its in yea.....




idk maybe ive been watching to much sci-fi channel

[KniteOps]

Thus the programmer's tedious fatalistic pain in coding brilliance went unrecognized by the general population.

[Neutral]

im not talking bout them book lernin' real worlds stuff, im talking about a comparison of intellects throughout time

[V-Opolis]

im not talking bout them book lernin' real worlds stuff, im talking about a comparison of intellects throughout time

expand ploz

[Neutral]

smartest people ever, i think everyone can agree on Einstein, Edison, Homer, and for today's time stephen hawking

sure all these people had great book lernin' (except homer) but what made them really stand out as geniuses was that they thought differently.


einstein figured out that bomby majiggy when noone else could

edison made some crazy *** inventions when everyone else was just plowing fields n shit

homer made expansive and creative plays n such

stephen hawking said some crazy shit about black holes that actually made sense

sure you can just learn by the books and be considered smart but to be truly smart you have to have the creativity also

and a computer can't be truly smart becuase it cannot have creativity

[EpicPhail]

Funny how the dumbest people think their creativity is ingenious instead of being regurgitated garbage and tend to favor their own deluded opinions over factual output (i.e. bad scores = test scores don't measure my true potential. I'm above the system even though I haven't done anything to prove myself to the world yet.) Engineers and mathematicians score higher on the LSAT on average than most liberal art pre-law majors: political science, philosophy, english, and cake-baking.

You do realize, every question on that LSAT sheet is there because at one point there was a man whom thought different then someone before him. Right ?

"BUT DAVIE WHAT DOES SCIENCE HAVE TO DO WITH ME SAYING ARTISTS ARE DUM MAN CMON"

Well, by definition smart is essentially awareness, correct ? What if i were to tell you that most of the things on that sheet don't create awareness ? What if I were to say alot of what we're taught actually changes our "Awareness" levels in a negative way ?

I see smart in a different way.

To be smart you have to be aware, that's the easy part. However, when you're aware and don't question doubtable things you're only following the crowd. When you see something doubtable, challenge it, and then prove it wrong.

I use the same princable with a lot of art.

"I can paint a picture better than anything you've ever seen, using my feet" Of course that sounds ****ing stupid, but if he did it- he's a genius.

[Neutral]

you mom said crazy shit then studied it...

then i banged her...

then had her make me a sammich...

btw i'm your step father now...

[EpicPhail]

java is still a tool we use to create, a computer can't use it on it's own

Alright, well if you wern't taught english as a child, and you wern't around english speaking people you would not have learned english.

Without the ability to speak you would know nothing.

See, if this is how you think there's been 10 "Smart" beings in our world, and the rest of us are just mindless droids.

[Neutral]

Alright, well if you wern't taught english as a child, and you wern't around english speaking people you would not have learned english.

Without the ability to speak you would know nothing.

See, if this is how you think there's been 10 "Smart" beings in our world, and the rest of us are just mindless droids.

oh no, not at all

it's not just the people who make the base, its the people who build upon said base. if everyone just learned english and then stood there and did nothing until we all died then yeah, we would all be droids.

however the truly smart people learned english then made other shit

a computer will only learn, it will not create on it's own

[KniteOps]

Just to kick a dead horse for the last time. The whole point is that a computer cannot come up with stuff on it's own. It's derived from the sweat and blood of human-engineered programming going through various routines, sub-routines, and all sorts of complicated nonsense like recursive that makes my head spin around in circles. If you want to know more about programming you can visit this link: http://math.hws.edu/javanotes/

Following formatted routines cannot be mistaken for intelligence. Computers have nothing that can be mistaken for intelligence, much less human intelligence. A chat program will always be a chat program. There is no "growth" or "development" if you don't install updates.

[EpicPhail]

Again, I believe this thread is more projecting what computers could do.

Do you believe 50 years from now a computer will not have the ability to expand or find things, flaws or anything humans cannot ? You do realize with the aid of computers we've seen flaws that we wouldn't have been able to see otherwise ? Computers have done things humans cannot, however there's been codes and a scripter behind all these actions. What if the computer that scripter had the ability to expand upon what he taught ? That reality isn't that far away =\

[Neutral]

Again, I believe this thread is more projecting what computers could do.

Do you believe 50 years from now a computer will not have the ability to expand or find things, flaws or anything humans cannot ? You do realize with the aid of computers we've seen flaws that we wouldn't have been able to see otherwise ? Computers have done things humans cannot, however there's been codes and a scripter behind all these actions. What if the computer that scripter had the ability to expand upon what he taught ? That reality isn't that far away =\

i could believe that...

but that would be assuming...

and assume makes and *** out of u and me...

Just to kick a dead horse for the last time. The whole point is that a computer cannot come up with stuff on it's own. It's derived from the sweat and blood of human-engineered programming going through various routines, sub-routines, and all sorts of complicated nonsense like recursive that makes my head spin around in circles. If you want to know more about programming you can visit this link: http://math.hws.edu/javanotes/

Following formatted routines cannot be mistaken for intelligence. Computers have nothing that can be mistaken for intelligence, much less human intelligence. A chat program will always be a chat program. There is no "growth" or "development" if you don't install updates.

thank you.. flow that to the negative please...

[Neutral]

A computer is a blank canvas when it is created. It is our job as a teacher to.. Teach it. As a child we are introduced to teachers, so in turn if we expand upon any theory or former creation the credit would go to the original to find it out ?

If that's the case the people whom created language are the only smart people to ever live. Without language no one would have learned anything, the same way a computer wouldnt learn without it's language and teachers.

now your making this a circular argument

we teach computers computers do not learn things on their own,l they are not curious

teachers teach us, we do learn things on our own,l we are curious


the people who created language were smart but so were the people who created math and ink and paper and steel and computers and coding and java and vidya games.

we are smart because we learn and add to it, computers are not smart because they learn and do nothing with it. and if they did it's becuase we told them to


did i win yet?

[Eferos]

We can't prove anything about Science.. *cough* stephen hawkings*cough* literally all science is theory. We cannot prove oxygen exists. By going into gravity and dieng? that might be because someone sucked up everything, or whatever the hell else. It is all theory.. <_<

I do hope you realize that the word "theory" is not equivalent to the word "guess" in science. Read the explanation on the terms "scientific law", "hypothesis" and "theory" at http://wilstar.com/theories.htm before posting any more replies.

[Eferos]

Heres where I just repeat the same thing everyone else is saying, just in a slightly different way:

"Man made computers, so computers are only as smart as the man who made them."

You are quoting a false statement. First of all, no single person invented everything needed to create a computer, thus the term "the man" is not appliable. Furthermore, while people can create things based on the natural properties of its components, they do not decide the natural properties themselves.

So while no public computer can be considered to be "smart" yet, the idea of such, that is even smarter than any human, being created in the future, by humans, is not unthinkable.

[Hatashi]

I would not call a computer smart.

Without Internet/Calculator, software, your PC wont be able to calculate what 1+1 is right?

It's the language that programmers gave them that makes computers calculate it.

Imagine a PC with no operating system, would that be considered smart?

I mean without it it still is a computer, but it does not have what programmers gave to it.

[Oisterman]

You are quoting a false statement. First of all, no single person invented everything needed to create a computer, thus the term "the man" is not appliable.

You're reading into my post too much.

Anyone can sit here and type up a huge response to a question like this, but this is the internet generation. Its all tl;dr. Summaries is what we neeeeeeed.

[Kluey]

A computer is obdient not smart.

[Deimos]

you can call a computer whatever you like but it still wont run that .exe the way you want it.

F*CKING WINDOWS SEVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN