3 ms·

Not at all. The goalposts are the same as they always were. If we want intelligent machines (the kind capable of creativity, that is, the ability to create new

Not at all. The goalposts are the same as they always were. If we want intelligent machines (the kind capable of creativity, that is, the ability to create new explanatory knowledge about reality), then we will need to see evidence of this creativity. So far no AI has even remotely approached this, because, among other things, no AI is capable of explaining anything at all.

mcv 8y ago
No, the goalposts have definitely moved. Playing chess used to be a sign of intelligence, and for that reason, game playing has always been a big focus for AI research. Search algorithms in general have always been part of AI research. They may not be self-learning, but not all AI is. And modern chess and go AI is self-learning and scarily good at it.
- candiodari 8y ago
  You don't even hear about the Turing test anymore. The orignal turing test was an AI algorithm fooling a human that it itself is human for ~5 minutes. One. The reason you don't hear it anymore is that it's obvious that algorithms are doing this on the phone for commercial purposes constantly. It's ridiculous how far the goalposts have moved.
- TaupeRanger 8y ago
  The goalposts are exactly where I said they are. They have always been there for people that actually understand the nature of the problem. The fact that some people were spectacularly and obviously wrong about the nature of chess programs is irrelevant.
  - mcv 8y ago
    Now you're just trying to sound pompous in an attempt to seem authoritative, but you're really not saying anything meaningful here. Where are those goalposts according to you? Who are those "people that actually understand the nature of the problem"? Which people are "spectacularly and obviously wrong about the nature of chess programs"? It is AI researchers themselves who decided that chess and game-playing in general were interesting to research. Everybody used to consider skill at chess a sign of intelligence. There have been many, many problems that have long been complex problems for AI to tackle, and that have only recently struck people as being not really about intelligence. Creativity was barely on the table for many decades, and has only recently come within reach of AI research. I wonder if maybe you're only looking at the last 20 years, and ignore the half century before that.

mcv 8y ago

No, the goalposts have definitely moved. Playing chess used to be a sign of intelligence, and for that reason, game playing has always been a big focus for AI research. Search algorithms in general have always been part of AI research. They may not be self-learning, but not all AI is. And modern chess and go AI is self-learning and scarily good at it.

candiodari 8y ago
You don't even hear about the Turing test anymore. The orignal turing test was an AI algorithm fooling a human that it itself is human for ~5 minutes. One. The reason you don't hear it anymore is that it's obvious that algorithms are doing this on the phone for commercial purposes constantly. It's ridiculous how far the goalposts have moved.
TaupeRanger 8y ago
The goalposts are exactly where I said they are. They have always been there for people that actually understand the nature of the problem. The fact that some people were spectacularly and obviously wrong about the nature of chess programs is irrelevant.
- mcv 8y ago
  Now you're just trying to sound pompous in an attempt to seem authoritative, but you're really not saying anything meaningful here. Where are those goalposts according to you? Who are those "people that actually understand the nature of the problem"? Which people are "spectacularly and obviously wrong about the nature of chess programs"? It is AI researchers themselves who decided that chess and game-playing in general were interesting to research. Everybody used to consider skill at chess a sign of intelligence. There have been many, many problems that have long been complex problems for AI to tackle, and that have only recently struck people as being not really about intelligence. Creativity was barely on the table for many decades, and has only recently come within reach of AI research. I wonder if maybe you're only looking at the last 20 years, and ignore the half century before that.