3 ms·

Using words such as "intuition" just makes the line between Strong and Weak AI blurrier, but that line is absolute. Think of it this way. Strong AI would lose

by unabst 11y ago

Using words such as "intuition" just makes the line between Strong and Weak AI blurrier, but that line is absolute. Think of it this way. Strong AI would lose to Weak AI at Go. So Strong AI is not in AphaGo's evolutionary path. Strong AI is the kind that authors and expresses things. Weak AIs are computational marvels. The brilliance of Strong AI would be in its capacity to build targeted Weak AI systems. And that is how Strong AI will beat any Weak AI system. If Strong AI is what we have, then just look at our relationship with AlphaGo. We created it, and it beat us at Go. Also, science is unpredictable. So saying we're 10 years ahead of schedule is not a scientific statement at all. Someone said it, and it was wrong, but they weren't speaking for the thousands of scientists working on new ideas as opposed to refining old ones.

pixl97 11y ago
>And that is how Strong AI will beat any Weak AI system. When humans build a calculator, do we say that the calculator beat humans at math, or humans beat calculators because we create them? Not really, they are just a tool. The problem with humans and calculators is the interface is rather clunky. You can't directly interface with the digital inputs of the calculator, but instead do so millions of times slower than a computer can. With strong AI this is not apt to be the case. Yes, it will create weak 'computational' AIs to do some tasks very well, but the speed that it will be able to interface and classify results at will be much faster than we are able to obtain. Where you and your calculator are very different things, ASI and it's calculators will not be.
- unabst 11y ago
  > humans beat calculators because we create them The new calculator will beat the old calculator. Humans don't beat calculators themselves. But only humans have the capacity to improve on calculators. And this is truly all we've been doing with science and technology ever since day one. And yes, they're all just tools. AphaGo is just a tool. It told the dude moving the pieces where to move the pieces to beat the world champion who was moving pieces without any help. AlphaGo2 will be a better tool. > much faster than we are able to obtain Would that be that important though? Compare IBM Watson with the Jeopardy champion, except, this time he gets to use Google. Watson has a direct line, Ken Jennings does not. So what? Calculators are the same thing. We don't benefit from a direct link, at least at that level. It gives us the answer, and we can read it. We only want the answer anyway. Having to download all the details is redundant. The mind reading interface is what is clunky, when we're already wireless. Seeing is enough. > ASI and it's calculators will not be. Right, so you're switching to hardware now. Artificial human enhancement is the go-to answer many will give you here, but it's a bit too sci-fi for me. But regardless, the strong-weak divide still stands. We would create tools to solve the problem. And this is where strong AI and calculators will differ, regardless of what other similarities they may have, physical or otherwise.
jacquesm 11y ago
Savants versus more widely applicable intellects?

by unabst 11y ago

pixl97 11y ago

>And that is how Strong AI will beat any Weak AI system. When humans build a calculator, do we say that the calculator beat humans at math, or humans beat calculators because we create them? Not really, they are just a tool. The problem with humans and calculators is the interface is rather clunky. You can't directly interface with the digital inputs of the calculator, but instead do so millions of times slower than a computer can. With strong AI this is not apt to be the case. Yes, it will create weak 'computational' AIs to do some tasks very well, but the speed that it will be able to interface and classify results at will be much faster than we are able to obtain. Where you and your calculator are very different things, ASI and it's calculators will not be.

unabst 11y ago
> humans beat calculators because we create them The new calculator will beat the old calculator. Humans don't beat calculators themselves. But only humans have the capacity to improve on calculators. And this is truly all we've been doing with science and technology ever since day one. And yes, they're all just tools. AphaGo is just a tool. It told the dude moving the pieces where to move the pieces to beat the world champion who was moving pieces without any help. AlphaGo2 will be a better tool. > much faster than we are able to obtain Would that be that important though? Compare IBM Watson with the Jeopardy champion, except, this time he gets to use Google. Watson has a direct line, Ken Jennings does not. So what? Calculators are the same thing. We don't benefit from a direct link, at least at that level. It gives us the answer, and we can read it. We only want the answer anyway. Having to download all the details is redundant. The mind reading interface is what is clunky, when we're already wireless. Seeing is enough. > ASI and it's calculators will not be. Right, so you're switching to hardware now. Artificial human enhancement is the go-to answer many will give you here, but it's a bit too sci-fi for me. But regardless, the strong-weak divide still stands. We would create tools to solve the problem. And this is where strong AI and calculators will differ, regardless of what other similarities they may have, physical or otherwise.

jacquesm 11y ago

Savants versus more widely applicable intellects?