3 ms·

"AI" is inherently meaningless because it is a moving goalpost. At any point in time, AI essentially means "something normally done by humans that most people

"AI" is inherently meaningless because it is a moving goalpost. At any point in time, AI essentially means "something normally done by humans that most people don't think computers could do proficiently". When, inevitably, someone programs a computer to do that thing, that thing quickly becomes no longer "AI" and the cycle continues.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
I disagree on the how the goalposts are moving. I'll outline the three camps I see. Some people say AI and mean "a thinking sorta-conscious thing that thinks like we do." Like C3PO or R2D2 or HAL or ourselves. That's their definition. People complain that that's not a rigorous falsifiable concept, so they say, "Okay here's a test that I think can only be done by a thinking sorta-conscious thing that thinks like we do." Then someone clever figures out how to do it without something that fits their definition. They respond, "Okay fine I guess my test was bad." It's kinda moving the goalposts, but their fuzzy conception of what AI means is still unchanged. It just remains hard to make concrete, especially since we can't really define things like consciousness in the first place. Another camp is marketing. It takes anything it can sell by calling it AI and does so. The goalposts lower. Linear regression is branded as AI now, like it or not. This is the opposite direction of what you're talking about. A final camp is what you talked about. I think these people are really in the first camp I mentioned. They don't move the goalposts on their concept, they just move the goalposts on their test. But there are also a distinct group who consider it as "something normally done by humans that most people don't think computers could do proficiently" or even just "computerized decision making/information processing." I'm in the first camp. "AI" is no less meaningless than "consciousness" but it's equally hard to define. Some people have begun using the label "AGI" for it. Same concept whatever your word choice. I think of C3PO but understand that words are defined by usage and maybe linear regression is AI now.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

I disagree on the how the goalposts are moving. I'll outline the three camps I see. Some people say AI and mean "a thinking sorta-conscious thing that thinks like we do." Like C3PO or R2D2 or HAL or ourselves. That's their definition. People complain that that's not a rigorous falsifiable concept, so they say, "Okay here's a test that I think can only be done by a thinking sorta-conscious thing that thinks like we do." Then someone clever figures out how to do it without something that fits their definition. They respond, "Okay fine I guess my test was bad." It's kinda moving the goalposts, but their fuzzy conception of what AI means is still unchanged. It just remains hard to make concrete, especially since we can't really define things like consciousness in the first place. Another camp is marketing. It takes anything it can sell by calling it AI and does so. The goalposts lower. Linear regression is branded as AI now, like it or not. This is the opposite direction of what you're talking about. A final camp is what you talked about. I think these people are really in the first camp I mentioned. They don't move the goalposts on their concept, they just move the goalposts on their test. But there are also a distinct group who consider it as "something normally done by humans that most people don't think computers could do proficiently" or even just "computerized decision making/information processing." I'm in the first camp. "AI" is no less meaningless than "consciousness" but it's equally hard to define. Some people have begun using the label "AGI" for it. Same concept whatever your word choice. I think of C3PO but understand that words are defined by usage and maybe linear regression is AI now.