3 ms·

Relevant comic: http://www.artificial-intelligence.com/comic/7 http://www.artificial-intelligence.com/comic/7

• stcredzero 8y ago
  But give it a humanoid form, a menacing mechanical voice, a bad attitude, and a zap gun, and the skepticism is much reduced!
• philwelch 8y ago
  Yup. For example, GPT-2, a new machine learning program that can reliably produce realistic middle-school-C-student-level text based on minimal prompts, has faced similar criticism: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/19/gpt-2-as-step-toward-general-intelligence/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/19/gpt-2-as-step-toward-g... Quote: > A machine learning researcher writes me in response to yesterday’s post, saying: >> I still think GPT-2 is a brute-force statistical pattern matcher which blends up the internet and gives you back a slightly unappetizing slurry of it when asked. > I resisted the urge to answer “Yeah, well, your mom is a brute-force statistical pattern matcher which blends up the internet and gives you back a slightly unappetizing slurry of it when asked.” > But I think it would have been true. The better we get at AI, the more we understand how AI works, and the more we can say, "that's not AI, that's just an algorithm that does <insert explanation of how the algorithm works>". OK, but there has to be some mechanism to how our brains work, right? How do we know we aren't just implementing shitty approximations of that mechanism?