5 ms·
I was directly responding to this portion of the parents posts: Small bits of it can be algorithmically simulated. Large processes can be algorithmically simul
by kls 16y ago
I was directly responding to this portion of the parents posts:
Small bits of it can be algorithmically simulated. Large processes can be algorithmically simulated. But to call the algorithm "intelligence" is sympathetic magic.
Algorithms work in a different way; they break in a different way; they are hard-coded so don't change. They are a simulation.
By the structuring of his description, it is apparent that he is reasoning from an application or "computer" if you will, developers perspective. My point was that it is flawed to look at AI software as rigid structures, applying traditional development patterns is flawed and does not reflect the realities of AI development. Put simply the description of AI as hard-coded paths and developer generated (implied) algorithms is in no way factual.
- blauwbilgorgel 16y agoI agree with you on that. AI has advanced beyond rigid structures and scripts. Using a system that operates with fuzzy logic or building a neural network and teaching it, 'till you the programmer can't make heads or tails of its computations and derivations is a wonderful thing indeed. As an aside: like Penrose chose quantum physics (a mysterious thing) to explain consciousness (another mysterious thing), and therefor didn't succeed to convince others, so we should guard against using a fuzzy, complex, black-box, dynamic system (a mysterious thing) to explain (or fully model) consciousness and human intelligence. We just replaced the wonder with another wonder :)