3 ms·
Once we can rigorously define what "smarter than a four-year-old" means, then yes. But until we even know what we are talking about, no.
by BucketSort 8y ago
Once we can rigorously define what "smarter than a four-year-old" means, then yes. But until we even know what we are talking about, no.
- jobigoud 8y agoI'm not sure that is true. For example I can tell you are "smarter than a four-year-old", even though we can't rigorously define what that means. I would even go as far as saying that the fact that we can't rigorously define what "smarter than a four-year-old" means is a limitation of the current intelligence or knowledge of Humans. Part of the trajectory of machine intelligence is independent of our own knowledge, for example through hardware improvements. They could get past our level before we can understand it ourselves.
- BucketSort 8y agoWe understand what "smart" means in relation to what one can do in the world, but that says nothing of what it actually is. It's like if I make an analogy: "That guy is like a dog chasing a bone." It only means something if you understand it, it has no substance on its own. I feel the same way about the way people use terms like "smart," "intelligent" they only mean something if we already know what they mean, but we only know what they mean in relation to the world, not their character independent of it. I do see the trajectories being different, but I believe they must also converge at some point. Edit: Also, the documentary "Baby Geniuses" has extensive evidence that babies are really smart, they just can't communicate how smart they are.