25 ms·
> we don't mean any of that sci-fi and AI stuff No one does. Even with AlphaGo the hype was insane, but was mostly caused by people confusing weak AI with str
by unabst 10y ago
> we don't mean any of that sci-fi and AI stuff
No one does.
Even with AlphaGo the hype was insane, but was mostly caused by people confusing weak AI with strong AI with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Any material that intentionally plays on this confusion is arguably false advertising and fraudulent.
The truth is, it's still impossible for anyone to talk about strong AI, because we have hardly been able to define what it even is. We just know we have it, and it's still unlike anything anyone is working on that has made it to the public. The people who write the papers absolutely know this. It's a common goal, but we have yet to engineer anything that remotely resembles strong AI.
For the most part, we're either still busy figuring out small but hard problems, or hacking resemblance and avoiding the important problems altogether.
- Trill-I-Am 10y agoTo what extent does this suggest to you that when we first develop strong AI, we won't know it?
- Atwood 10y agoExcellent point. It seems to me that there is a very good chance that by judging it by our own ab/de/inductive metrics we could miss its blossoming. Your own two cents?
- unabst 10y agoEngineering requires understanding. If we're randomly mixing potions then we may get a result without any understanding, but there's a name for that, and it's called magic. Strong AI will most certainly appear magical, but any technology with this level of sophistication will require focused, intentional, intelligent effort. The person who accomplishes it will know exactly what they were doing. This mystical emergence of intelligence is also somewhat metaphysical and unscientific. There are no ghosts in shells, and intelligence doesn't just rise from bare metal. If we were to ask if someone could invent bitcoin and not know it, it'd be a joke. Yet, with AI, there are those who still intuitively argue for some form of emergence. But across the board, these claims are made with little or no understanding of what underlies physical intelligence.
- unabst 10y agoIf anyone has evidence of a scientific counterargument, please share. The bean sprout AI myth needs busting.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- PeterisP 10y agoI wouldn't even say that it's a common goal. If I'm trying to solve problem X and writing a paper about a new, better AI/ML approach to do it - this is most likely not even in the direction of strong AI. In fact, the new and improved solution is quite likely to be more specialized to the problem and thus even further from a general AI. If I could magically build a strong general AI then it most likely wouldn't be an improved or even a good solution to the problem I'm looking at - it would be a horribly inefficient overkill, something comparable to using a human brain to perform arithmetic calculations - it can do it, but less accurately and more wastefully than a simple calculator.
- Retric 10y agoIt takes years of training before humans can demonstrate human level intelligence. Unless the first strong AI is super human it's not going to look like a strong AI for several years.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoIt takes years of training before humans can be trusted with pants. Really, we should lower our expectations of AIs by three or four orders of magnitude. If they can walk in less than a year of trying, then they win. http://www.gocomics.com/monty http://www.gocomics.com/monty
- transpy 10y agoYes, humans are also very hyped organisms. Lets dispel the notion that a defining trait of humans is producing or processing highly complex language patterns.
- d215 10y agoYears of training? Do untrained 3 year olds not demonstrate human level intelligence?