4 ms·
Well, I think you do have a point, but on the other hand, there have been people saying "Machines will never play chess well because it will require general int
by yongjik 7y ago
Well, I think you do have a point, but on the other hand, there have been people saying "Machines will never play chess well because it will require general intelligence!"
And when machines start to play chess (or go, or Starcraft) they just say "Oh well it's just computation."
So I think it's justified to bring up "AI effect" when people say "machines will never do $(insert your favorite activity here) because it requires general intelligence!"
- perl4ever 7y agoSince the beginning of time, people have anthropomorphized any and every thing that is complex enough to be beyond a person's understanding. Being equivalent to a human mind is the default assumption for anything. If it was a wrong assumption when applied to storms, volcanoes, Babbage's machine, Clever Hans, ELIZA, and a billion other things, then why would you assign any weight to most claims that something requires intelligence? It makes me think of the saying about atheism, that an atheism disbelieves just one more god out of thousands than a (mono)theist. You disbelieve in intelligence in very nearly all of the things it's been used to explain.
- edflsafoiewq 7y agoIt's also possible that an autistic chess-winning machine is not actually reproducing the full range of behaviors humans mean by the phrase "playing chess".