3 ms·

Yes – stuff like this is confusing 'intelligence' with 'sentience'. Playing go or chess would have been classified as activities clearly requiring intelligence

Yes – stuff like this is confusing 'intelligence' with 'sentience'. Playing go or chess would have been classified as activities clearly requiring intelligence in the recent past. We're just moving the goalpost whenever AI advances. At some point, it'll probably divide mankind into fractions which either want or don't want to grant certain rights to AI (possibly obsoleted by the great AI uprising of 2025-20-11 6:45:23am to 2025-20-11 6:45:25am)

jacquesm 10y ago
I don't think it is quite that simple. The 'real world' is not nearly as nicely ordered and specified as a turns based game is. So a computer will be ideally positioned to take advantage of its ability to: - remember perfectly, forever - execute algorithms at extreme speed - in parallel So you end up with a race that is comparable to a sparrow against a jet airplane. Technology can and does beat biology regularly in all sorts of domains. Slowly but surely computers are making their way into the real world: their programmers - and by extension the systems - learn how to adapt to the messiness of interacting with life as we know it. Just like you'd first get kids to play in a playground (the games) and then let them loose in the real world (self driving cars and other much harder tasks). In the end, all of these amount to a slow but steady march towards human equivalence on a large range of tasks, and excelling humans on plenty of them. The hard AI question is one where we ask ourselves whether or not there will one of these days be a system that is better than humans on essentially all tasks without exception, including learning, creativity and so on. Once you reach that level all bets are off, until then the slow-but-steady march continues. The difference is evolution vs revolution, but we've already seen enough progress in limited AI domains that we could conclude we're already seeing a minimal revolution. Whether it will result in a major one is still an open question, it could easily be that progress will at some point plateau.

jacquesm 10y ago

I don't think it is quite that simple. The 'real world' is not nearly as nicely ordered and specified as a turns based game is. So a computer will be ideally positioned to take advantage of its ability to: - remember perfectly, forever - execute algorithms at extreme speed - in parallel So you end up with a race that is comparable to a sparrow against a jet airplane. Technology can and does beat biology regularly in all sorts of domains. Slowly but surely computers are making their way into the real world: their programmers - and by extension the systems - learn how to adapt to the messiness of interacting with life as we know it. Just like you'd first get kids to play in a playground (the games) and then let them loose in the real world (self driving cars and other much harder tasks). In the end, all of these amount to a slow but steady march towards human equivalence on a large range of tasks, and excelling humans on plenty of them. The hard AI question is one where we ask ourselves whether or not there will one of these days be a system that is better than humans on essentially all tasks without exception, including learning, creativity and so on. Once you reach that level all bets are off, until then the slow-but-steady march continues. The difference is evolution vs revolution, but we've already seen enough progress in limited AI domains that we could conclude we're already seeing a minimal revolution. Whether it will result in a major one is still an open question, it could easily be that progress will at some point plateau.