4 ms·

>I don't think anyone would call an algorithm that in theory can apply to lots of domains intelligent. You need a concrete implementation to demonstrate this

• seanwilson 10y ago
  Hmm, I think we're misunderstanding each other. Is your view that RL and CNN have been or can be applied to create a machine you'd call intelligent right now? My original comment was about how people shift the goal posts about what AI is. My opinion is that in the same way you'd struggle to call a human intelligent if literally all they could do was play genius level Go, most people would not call a computer program intelligent if all it could do was play Go. If the machine could play many other games and adapt to games it hasn't seen before that's more convincing, but you would expect an intelligent machine to be able to adapt to more varied tasks as well (e.g. having conversations, writing stories, doing maths, recognising objects). Right now, we have AIs that are genius level at one task that cannot even attempt other tasks e.g. genius level at Chess or even a whole category of games but couldn't have a basic conversation. > How will not applying the same technique/algorithm to lots of domains disqualify from being intelligent? RL and CNNs are being applied in many domains today. Is the complexity of the algorithm is what you're disagreeing with? I'd say it's not important if it's one algorithm, many algorithms, simple algorithms or complex algorithms, just that it's a single general purpose concrete implementation that is capable of doing many varied tasks and learning. > The human brain (if you strip out stuff that does not pertain to intelligence) can be seen as one super complex machine which can be encoded. We just don't know all the algorithm/code yet. Yeah, I don't think there's anything magical about the brain that a computer couldn't replicate in some form.
  • ktta 10y ago
    >My original comment was about how people shift the goal posts about what AI is. My opinion is that in the same way you'd struggle to call a human intelligent if literally all they could do was play genius level Go, most people would not call a computer program intelligent if all it could do was play Go. I totally agree with you on that one. >Hmm, I think we're misunderstanding each other. Is your view that RL and CNN have been or can be applied to create a machine you'd call intelligent right now? Not really. I was making a point to this: >I don't think anyone would call an algorithm that in theory can apply to lots of domains intelligent. You need a concrete implementation to demonstrate this. I was saying that even the human mind is one complex algorithm and we consider that intelligence. Something being understandable and us being able to apply to multiple domains can be intelligence as we see it today. It's just that we don't know what the complex algorithm is. >If the machine could play many other games and adapt to games it hasn't seen before that's more convincing, but you would expect an intelligent machine to be able to adapt to more varied tasks as well (e.g. having conversations, writing stories, doing maths, recognising objects). Right now, we have AIs that are genius level at one task that cannot even attempt other tasks e.g. genius level at Chess or even a whole category of games but couldn't have a basic conversation. This is exactly what I'm getting at. If we do find out the algorithm that effective replicates human intelligence, isn't that intelligence according to the definition of intelligence? If we find out the complex human algorithm, then we'd be able to do all the things that you just described I think where our misunderstanding arises is that I'm saying you're disconnecting the working of human brain and algorithms. I'm saying human brain is one big algorithm and your statement : >I don't think anyone would call an algorithm that in theory can apply to lots of domains intelligent Wouldn't hold true in the case where we find out the algorithm for emulating the brain effectively. This disconnect in separating human intelligence from being anything other than an algorithm will make us see human brain as an un-understandable mystery box, which I think it is not.
  • visarga 10y ago
    > My opinion is that in the same way you'd struggle to call a human intelligent if literally all they could do was play genius level Go, most people would not call a computer program intelligent if all it could do was play Go. Let's see, how many skills/domains can a particular human cover? For example, I can't speak Chinese. I haven't learned Chinese. Also, I have no idea about medicine. But people who learned medicine, know a great deal about it. Maybe a human can do 20-100 things, like walking, low level addition and multiplication, speaking a few languages, playing a few games and working in a few domains. Not an infinite list. In the same way RL systems and CNNs can be used for hundreds of different applications, depending on the data they are trained on. Also, it is not the same neural net in the brain that handles two different skills, we use specialized neural nets for any of our skills too. If you stick together a few neural nets and a controller that selects the right one for the task, you could have a "single" system doing many things, just give it training data to learn those skills. Humans take 20 years to learn the necessary skills to function in society too. Neural nets can do it much faster and often surpass humans. DeepMind started Go a couple of years back and surpassed the best human player - how is it possible to do that, in such a short time span? And it wasn't a case of 'clever tricks' like the chess program Deep Blue.