3 ms·
> I don't think we are on the precipice of general AI, perhaps we are not even close. In all probability, I want to agree with you. However, deep learning unn
by smdz 10y ago
> I don't think we are on the precipice of general AI, perhaps we are not even close.
In all probability, I want to agree with you.
However, deep learning unnerves me. Seriously, how many people who evolved the deep-learning-trained models actually understand how those models work? But the models produce good-to-great results.
So there could be a small chance that general AI could randomly and spontaneously come into existence. Either we are too close to general AI or infinitely far from it. We can't tell it because we are not sure if intelligence is a evolved goal oriented function or an engineered substance. Being an atheist, I believe the first part - and thats what deep-learning based AI looks like.
- zebrafish 10y agoA major difference here is that humans don't have user defined stimuli. Human intelligence evolved because of the need to survive which evolved because of the need for genetic replication. Our need to survive lead to a nervous system which created the need for a central management platform (the brain). People do understand the deep-learning models they create. They're based on a user defined limit for error which is the mathematical distance between what is and what is not. I think that until we have an algorithm that can rewrite itself optimizing for existence (bug-less-ness and a continuous power supply?), we won't even scratch the surface of general AI.