5 ms·
Driving and go were considered waaay deep into "hard AI" just 10 years ago. Even if you mean to ask this question about "general artificial intelligence", you o
by alanbernstein 10y ago
Driving and go were considered waaay deep into "hard AI" just 10 years ago. Even if you mean to ask this question about "general artificial intelligence", you only need to go as far as speech or text comprehension for an example of something that needs to behave more or less like a person.
- morgante 10y ago> Driving and go were considered waaay deep into "hard AI" just 10 years ago. Oh, I know that. In fact, I think there are some very useful and very hard tasks which even AGI (at least a basic one) would not be able to solve. My point is that we should focus on applications, not person-ness. Whether a technique is similar to human cognition or not, or the result is similar to a person, is immaterial. Put simply, I don't think it matters much if all our super-powerful machines are ultimately Blockheads.
- kazagistar 10y agoThere is value in trying to emulate the human mind, which is in learning how the human mind works. A proper simulation of human intelligence would be an invaluable building block for health fields like psychology. Of course this is a very different kind of AI, and the focus on application specific measures of AI success have distracted from this goal.
- vintermann 10y agoNo, being able to emulate a human is not necessary for understanding one and communicating with one. We can have great text comprehension (maybe even superhuman, won't that be fun?) and conversational interfaces without online learning, or without any overall model of interacting with the world.