3 ms·

I think the root the issue is that "AI" is a vague term where almost any kind of program, no none at all could go under. The fact that a machine can automatical

I think the root the issue is that "AI" is a vague term where almost any kind of program, no none at all could go under. The fact that a machine can automatically calculate the sum of two numbers could be considered artificially intelligent by someone who's never seen a computer before. At the same time, no matter how far you go, any program (based on turing-like machines) will always be a deterministic chain of cause-and-effect, which is "just a computation". But AI in its meaning use contains a certain set of fields in a way that makes sense. It's just the puplic misinterpration nonsense that makes it look so weird.

sjy 7y ago
Are computers meaningfully different to brains in that “deterministic” respect? Both are apparently based on deterministic interactions at the nanometre scale and exhibit simple behaviour that can be explained from first principles (eg. simple arithmetic, or a stroke). Both also exhibit complex emergent behaviour that can’t be explained from first principles (eg. the output of complex ML systems, or most human behaviour), which we sometimes call “non-deterministic.” I’m happy to concede that software is artificially intelligent just as I’m prepared to concede that most animals are naturally intelligent. It’s just a question of drawing an arbitrary line when things are intelligent enough to warrant the description. The AI effect is the process of that line getting moved closer and closer to “capable of doing everything an average human can do.”
- meowface 7y ago
  Exactly. That's why there's the AI vs. AGI distinction.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  The definition of a modern human is someone who does what machines do not do, so as machines become more capable it changes what humans do. I guess it seems very likely to me that we will have Skynet/paperclip maximizers before AGI. I mean, I think we kind of do right now in what the internet is growing into. We're like single cells imagining what a brain would be like but we'll never know because probably we'll be part of something brainless that dominates the ecosystem, or if there is an organism with a brain, we won't be able to perceive it because we're components.
  - sjy 7y ago
    We are already components of something brainless that dominates the ecosystem. :-)
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Of course, but that thing is getting more and more computerized and the software is getting more sophisticated. My point is just that if there is a phase change, we probably won't notice because we're part of it and don't perceive it.

sjy 7y ago

Are computers meaningfully different to brains in that “deterministic” respect? Both are apparently based on deterministic interactions at the nanometre scale and exhibit simple behaviour that can be explained from first principles (eg. simple arithmetic, or a stroke). Both also exhibit complex emergent behaviour that can’t be explained from first principles (eg. the output of complex ML systems, or most human behaviour), which we sometimes call “non-deterministic.” I’m happy to concede that software is artificially intelligent just as I’m prepared to concede that most animals are naturally intelligent. It’s just a question of drawing an arbitrary line when things are intelligent enough to warrant the description. The AI effect is the process of that line getting moved closer and closer to “capable of doing everything an average human can do.”

meowface 7y ago
Exactly. That's why there's the AI vs. AGI distinction.
perl4ever 7y ago
The definition of a modern human is someone who does what machines do not do, so as machines become more capable it changes what humans do. I guess it seems very likely to me that we will have Skynet/paperclip maximizers before AGI. I mean, I think we kind of do right now in what the internet is growing into. We're like single cells imagining what a brain would be like but we'll never know because probably we'll be part of something brainless that dominates the ecosystem, or if there is an organism with a brain, we won't be able to perceive it because we're components.
- sjy 7y ago
  We are already components of something brainless that dominates the ecosystem. :-)
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Of course, but that thing is getting more and more computerized and the software is getting more sophisticated. My point is just that if there is a phase change, we probably won't notice because we're part of it and don't perceive it.