4 ms·

>But as soon as we are able to solve a problem that we think (feel?) only true AI (AGI) would be able to solve, as soon as we know how it was solved, it is no l

>But as soon as we are able to solve a problem that we think (feel?) only true AI (AGI) would be able to solve, as soon as we know how it was solved, it is no longer a mystery that warrants amazement and we argue that it is not real intelligence, just like the link below states. Well, the problem here is that we keep expecting "real intelligence" to have magical properties: we expect intelligence to be a way of creating new and interesting thoughts, ex nihilo, rather than an efficient engine for distilling structure from experiences, and to be ontologically special to prove how special we humans are on a universal scale. There are cognitive science and neuroscience labs hard at work on deciphering how actually-existing human thought works, but as far as I can tell, everyone facinated by "AI" is so enamoured with intelligence being special that they don't pay attention to those labs. A great deal of books and papers are thus published, and as far as "AI" is concerned, it's all in vain somehow.

ktta 10y ago
>Well, the problem here is that we keep expecting "real intelligence" to have magical properties: we expect intelligence to be a way of creating new and interesting thoughts I think we might have to step into borderline philosophical subjects like epistemology and sentience depending on who you talk to to define intelligence and whether you're the free will group or determinism group and so on. I think you might agree with the statement that we can't yet come to a strict definition of what intelligence is, and once we have it, if we are going for intelligence or something more akin to stuff independent of intelligence like sentience and creative thought. I'm personally in the determinist group and agree that there is nothing inherently magical about intelligence, just us being simpletons who cannot comprehend how a microprocessor works when you just give the latest intel chip. It is so complex that we need a lot of time and energy to comprehend it, but like the intel chip, I believe there is a design aspect to the human brain rather than it being a magical black box. The problem is, the majority of us are the simpletons and have a long way to go before we have the knowledge that the intel chip makers have. I apologize for the bad intel chip analogy, I probably could've come up with something better :)

ktta 10y ago

>Well, the problem here is that we keep expecting "real intelligence" to have magical properties: we expect intelligence to be a way of creating new and interesting thoughts I think we might have to step into borderline philosophical subjects like epistemology and sentience depending on who you talk to to define intelligence and whether you're the free will group or determinism group and so on. I think you might agree with the statement that we can't yet come to a strict definition of what intelligence is, and once we have it, if we are going for intelligence or something more akin to stuff independent of intelligence like sentience and creative thought. I'm personally in the determinist group and agree that there is nothing inherently magical about intelligence, just us being simpletons who cannot comprehend how a microprocessor works when you just give the latest intel chip. It is so complex that we need a lot of time and energy to comprehend it, but like the intel chip, I believe there is a design aspect to the human brain rather than it being a magical black box. The problem is, the majority of us are the simpletons and have a long way to go before we have the knowledge that the intel chip makers have. I apologize for the bad intel chip analogy, I probably could've come up with something better :)