3 ms·
Heh, how is this any different from classic AI arrogance, why should we believe this is not exactly the pitfall the author cautions against at the beginning? I
by resu_nimda 11y ago
Heh, how is this any different from classic AI arrogance, why should we believe this is not exactly the pitfall the author cautions against at the beginning? I mean this sounds almost verbatim like so many "yeah we're getting some really good results, almost there, just a few ends to tie up" sentiments from over the years.
Of course I can't say whether you're right or wrong, only time will tell, but I have a pretty strong belief that the first "true AI" is not going to come from any of the currently predominant methods/techniques/lines of inquiry.
- eli_gottlieb 11y agoAgain: I think the test is to replicate distinctly psychological behavior, to come up with theories of how actually-existing minds work, rather than to come up with theories of "pure logic" or "pure rationality". You don't do real science by trying to explain your sci-fi imaginings. You try to explain things you've already got in the world.