> Since no one understands how general unsupervised learning actually works, we're quite a ways off from building the general AIs you see in movies. Is this re

> Since no one understands how general unsupervised learning actually works, we're quite a ways off from building the general AIs you see in movies. Is this really the case? I thought the field had a pretty good handle on the theoretical foundations of unsupervised learning. Can anyone confirm what he's asserting here? > Some people claim this is just a matter of getting more computing power -- and that as Moore's law continues and computing becomes cheaper we'll naturally have AIs that surpass human intelligence. And this is happening, it's just not in a general sense because the general case of human intelligence is enormously complex, a composite of all the simple cases that improvements in computing power and models are just beginning to master. > This is incorrect. We fundamentally do not understand how general learning works. This is an unsolved problem -- maybe the most important problem of this century or even millennium. Until we solve this problem, throwing all the machine power in the world at it cannot create an AI that can do everything a person can. Again, can anyone fact check this? Seems a bit overstated.