3 ms·
I dunno, there are plenty of humans that wouldn't make it to AI classification by that measurement, so I'm a skeptical to say the least. I don't think any of us
by duaneb 11y ago
I dunno, there are plenty of humans that wouldn't make it to AI classification by that measurement, so I'm a skeptical to say the least. I don't think any of us are going to see past the uncanny valley of human-computer interaction—computers will have their tasks, but they'll be just that—task solvers. Why make it more magical than that? It's a waste of money to try, too—much of what makes humans unique isn't really useful in a business context (like giving up on problems because you're bored or hungry or having desires).
- pixl97 11y ago>like giving up on problems because you're bored That is actually one of the more useful things a computer can do. It is also one of the hardest to program (see the halting problem). It is very useful for a computer for a computer to be able to do that when it has to pick out millions of likely candidates from quadrillions of possible answers. >but they'll be just that—task solvers. Why make it more magical than that? So you're in the 'people are magic' camp. You'll be very disappointed when you learn that people are just billions of years of bio-chemistry left to run rampant and that electro-mechanics and reproduce the same thing.
- duaneb 11y ago> So you're in the 'people are magic' camp. ...how are you extrapolating that from anything I said? All I mean is that "AI" is inherently meaningless. When you ground it in reality there are more useful terms that are meaningful. Also, I meant to point out that large parts of the brain's chemistry are not useful to emulate, leading me to question using humans as a base for "intelligence" comparison