5 ms·

Not now, but if you can really create AI, it shouldn't be indistinguishable of human Intelligence. My point is that it is unlikely to make big steps now to adv

Not now, but if you can really create AI, it shouldn't be indistinguishable of human Intelligence. My point is that it is unlikely to make big steps now to advance in PL, but it is very likely you can do it in AI. The last 5 years have been crazy and the people working on it now is much more than few years ago. Note: most probably you wont be getting human-like AI anytime soon

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dunpeal 9y ago
> Not now, but if you can really create AI, it shouldn't be indistinguishable of human Intelligence. If we really create AI that is "indistinguishable of human Intelligence", then all questions about human jobs or research become moot, no? If someone was to create AI that is human-equivalent (aka strong AI) then that would be their final project as a human being. There would be no need for human professional or academic effort after that point.
- Cozumel 9y ago
  >'If someone was to create AI that is human-equivalent (aka strong AI)' Creating AI with human level intelligence isn't going to be so great, most people are complete idiots. Creating AI with above human intelligence is a different story.
  - dunkelheit 9y ago
    A well-known "paradox" states that tasks that require savant-level intelligence from humans (like playing chess) are actually doable with computers, but tasks that any idiot can do (say, pouring yourself a cup of tea) are crazy hard.
- jorgemf 9y ago
  Well... They said the same in the industrial era. There are a lot of things to consider, for example: - AI might not like to work, as we don't like to work - You suppose that if you create AI then the AI can create a more intelligence AI and this to the infinity. We don't know if the intelligence is unlimited or limited. We might have reach the top intelligence. (note: the more intelligent the brain the slower it is, and a bigger brain does not relate to intelligence)
mikeash 9y ago
Sounds a lot like saying people should get into management so that they can get other people to do stuff for them. People can do anything people can do, so you should get into people. And it's totally true! A good manager can make anything happen that their team can accomplish, and their impact can be huge. But some people want to actually work on the stuff, not work on the stuff that works on the stuff.
- dunkelheit 9y ago
  Actually, compilers are a great example of this dynamic - when you work becomes more and more impactful, but more and more removed from actual problems people have. Say, you write a script to solve a specific problem someone has. But that is not very impactful - one person is happy and that's all. So you generalize your program to a whole class of problems. But that's not the end. Next, you write a framework for writing programs similar to the one you've developed on the previous step. And of course, all languages being shit, you'll want to write a compiler for a language to write your framework in. So you end up with a thing that is very impactful but also pretty useless on its own.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Nice example. Really, lots of technology is like this. If you enjoy arithmetic, you do it. If not, you use a calculator. If you enjoy digging, grab a shovel, otherwise use a backhoe. Nothing wrong with picking the layer you enjoy, and a backhoe isn't always the best answer anyway.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dunpeal 9y ago

> Not now, but if you can really create AI, it shouldn't be indistinguishable of human Intelligence. If we really create AI that is "indistinguishable of human Intelligence", then all questions about human jobs or research become moot, no? If someone was to create AI that is human-equivalent (aka strong AI) then that would be their final project as a human being. There would be no need for human professional or academic effort after that point.

Cozumel 9y ago
>'If someone was to create AI that is human-equivalent (aka strong AI)' Creating AI with human level intelligence isn't going to be so great, most people are complete idiots. Creating AI with above human intelligence is a different story.
- dunkelheit 9y ago
  A well-known "paradox" states that tasks that require savant-level intelligence from humans (like playing chess) are actually doable with computers, but tasks that any idiot can do (say, pouring yourself a cup of tea) are crazy hard.
jorgemf 9y ago
Well... They said the same in the industrial era. There are a lot of things to consider, for example: - AI might not like to work, as we don't like to work - You suppose that if you create AI then the AI can create a more intelligence AI and this to the infinity. We don't know if the intelligence is unlimited or limited. We might have reach the top intelligence. (note: the more intelligent the brain the slower it is, and a bigger brain does not relate to intelligence)

mikeash 9y ago

Sounds a lot like saying people should get into management so that they can get other people to do stuff for them. People can do anything people can do, so you should get into people. And it's totally true! A good manager can make anything happen that their team can accomplish, and their impact can be huge. But some people want to actually work on the stuff, not work on the stuff that works on the stuff.

dunkelheit 9y ago
Actually, compilers are a great example of this dynamic - when you work becomes more and more impactful, but more and more removed from actual problems people have. Say, you write a script to solve a specific problem someone has. But that is not very impactful - one person is happy and that's all. So you generalize your program to a whole class of problems. But that's not the end. Next, you write a framework for writing programs similar to the one you've developed on the previous step. And of course, all languages being shit, you'll want to write a compiler for a language to write your framework in. So you end up with a thing that is very impactful but also pretty useless on its own.
- mikeash 9y ago
  Nice example. Really, lots of technology is like this. If you enjoy arithmetic, you do it. If not, you use a calculator. If you enjoy digging, grab a shovel, otherwise use a backhoe. Nothing wrong with picking the layer you enjoy, and a backhoe isn't always the best answer anyway.