3 ms·
> Entire schools of philosophy disagree completely. I'm sure they do; it's very much a matter of debate. > brute force word nearness ML cluster doesn't unders
by nkozyra 8y ago
> Entire schools of philosophy disagree completely.
I'm sure they do; it's very much a matter of debate.
> brute force word nearness ML cluster doesn't understand the text it's translating, and therefore will always be lacking
Humanlike reasoning doesn't solve this problem. Understanding does not prevent this abstract "lacking." Strong AI is not suddenly perfect.
> always have cases that it simply cannot solve.
This is an inherent problem with reasoning, not with strong vs weak AI. Which leads us back to:
> Strong AI is probably impossible.
If we measure "Strong AI" as infallible, then yes. If we measure it by "understanding," then no. Which is why I care more about results than the philosophical debate over understanding/consciousness/humanness. 99.999% is acceptable if 100% is impossible.