3 ms·

Please reread my comment. I specifically state that this test is only to consider a game easy when it is the first game a human has ever played. So the problem

Please reread my comment. I specifically state that this test is only to consider a game easy when it is the first game a human has ever played. So the problem of humans having experience with other video games is not present.

pmoriarty 7y ago
So where do you get the data on how well humans did on this hypothetical video game, when that game is the first video game they ever played in their life? It's doubtful whether such data exists. Even if it did it's questionable whether such results have any bearing on human understanding or intelligence.
csomar 7y ago
> first game a human has ever played Like a human that never played a game, used a computer, used any physical buttons, learned a language, understands what a game is, knows what a sport like football is, etc... There is lots of stuff that you'll need to feed your AI to be equivalent to a 6 year-old brain. That and a 6 year-old interaction with a game will be more random than logically driven. If you are doing that you are already at the stage of AGI. It is not theoretically impossible but the impracticality of it right now is what makes scientist trying domain-specific AI.
- chongli 7y ago
  There is lots of stuff that you'll need to feed your AI to be equivalent to a 6 year-old brain... If you are doing that you are already at the stage of AGI. That’s kind of my point. The article is asking the question “do they understand?” and my answer is yes, if you can do this. Read, to a 6-year-old, a kid’s book about a knight with sword and shield rescuing a princess and they will have no problem playing Zelda. Does the child understand the damsel in distress trope? I would argue yes. This sort of test would be extremely difficult to get an AI to pass. Heck, it doesn’t even have to be video games. Just do any test that involves translating a concept from one medium to another (text and video). It’s extremely simple for humans to do and extremely hard for an AI.

pmoriarty 7y ago

So where do you get the data on how well humans did on this hypothetical video game, when that game is the first video game they ever played in their life? It's doubtful whether such data exists. Even if it did it's questionable whether such results have any bearing on human understanding or intelligence.

csomar 7y ago

> first game a human has ever played Like a human that never played a game, used a computer, used any physical buttons, learned a language, understands what a game is, knows what a sport like football is, etc... There is lots of stuff that you'll need to feed your AI to be equivalent to a 6 year-old brain. That and a 6 year-old interaction with a game will be more random than logically driven. If you are doing that you are already at the stage of AGI. It is not theoretically impossible but the impracticality of it right now is what makes scientist trying domain-specific AI.

chongli 7y ago
There is lots of stuff that you'll need to feed your AI to be equivalent to a 6 year-old brain... If you are doing that you are already at the stage of AGI. That’s kind of my point. The article is asking the question “do they understand?” and my answer is yes, if you can do this. Read, to a 6-year-old, a kid’s book about a knight with sword and shield rescuing a princess and they will have no problem playing Zelda. Does the child understand the damsel in distress trope? I would argue yes. This sort of test would be extremely difficult to get an AI to pass. Heck, it doesn’t even have to be video games. Just do any test that involves translating a concept from one medium to another (text and video). It’s extremely simple for humans to do and extremely hard for an AI.