5 ms·

Yes, but you're missing the point. In 1950's sci-fi, those marvels were possible because there was imagined to be something like a general artificial intelligen

Yes, but you're missing the point. In 1950's sci-fi, those marvels were possible because there was imagined to be something like a general artificial intelligence behind the technology. We've achieved narrow AI, but the perception is that in order to get it, we would already have general AI, which is why people are disappointed.

robbrown451 6y ago
Whether 50s sci-fi imagined or implied other things is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the current capability described (point camera at sign, get translation) qualifies as AI. The point is we have current things that are quite amazing, and would at one time have been considered to be the sort of thing that only an AI would be able to do, and yet we keep moving the goalposts. As if AI is defined as "that which humans can do but machines can't, done by machines".
- jpttsn 6y ago
  But was it the “capability” that qualified as AI in the 50s? Or was the capability just one example of what the AI could do? Suppose we said we’ve invented Jesus because we’ve invented ways to walk on water and turn it into wine.
  - robbrown451 6y ago
    I don't get your Jesus analogy, I mean Jesus is a proper noun for an individual. A technology is different. Its capabilities pretty much define it. Unless you are going to try to get all philosophical about it and say it doesn't count if it doesn't experience qualia or something (which is nonsense) Or, unless you are defining it in ways that specifically call out the implementation details. A helium balloon isn't a hot air balloon, not because it doesn't have capabilities, but because you've specifically said in the name that it must use hot air.
    - jpttsn 6y ago
      If a client/muggle asks me to build an “AI” I’ll be wary that their “spec” is sometimes just examples of what the “AI” should be able to do: play chess, write a poem. In their mental model, the AI is far from defined by these capabilities. They won’t be happy unless there’s an actual AGI whose capabilities happen to overlap with the spec. So my point is historically we have cheated our way out of defining “intelligence” and instead given necessary but insufficient examples. I think this is the mechanism behind the goalpost-shifting in “AI”. That’s the metaphor: it would clearly be absurd for engineers to define Jesus by some examples of capabilities. People who are waiting for the second coming won’t be satisfied. In the lab we maybe should define AI by some set of capabilities. But clients, journalists etc. picture the Hollywood version, and narrowly fulfilling their spec won’t actually satisfy them.

robbrown451 6y ago

Whether 50s sci-fi imagined or implied other things is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the current capability described (point camera at sign, get translation) qualifies as AI. The point is we have current things that are quite amazing, and would at one time have been considered to be the sort of thing that only an AI would be able to do, and yet we keep moving the goalposts. As if AI is defined as "that which humans can do but machines can't, done by machines".

jpttsn 6y ago
But was it the “capability” that qualified as AI in the 50s? Or was the capability just one example of what the AI could do? Suppose we said we’ve invented Jesus because we’ve invented ways to walk on water and turn it into wine.
- robbrown451 6y ago
  I don't get your Jesus analogy, I mean Jesus is a proper noun for an individual. A technology is different. Its capabilities pretty much define it. Unless you are going to try to get all philosophical about it and say it doesn't count if it doesn't experience qualia or something (which is nonsense) Or, unless you are defining it in ways that specifically call out the implementation details. A helium balloon isn't a hot air balloon, not because it doesn't have capabilities, but because you've specifically said in the name that it must use hot air.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    If a client/muggle asks me to build an “AI” I’ll be wary that their “spec” is sometimes just examples of what the “AI” should be able to do: play chess, write a poem. In their mental model, the AI is far from defined by these capabilities. They won’t be happy unless there’s an actual AGI whose capabilities happen to overlap with the spec. So my point is historically we have cheated our way out of defining “intelligence” and instead given necessary but insufficient examples. I think this is the mechanism behind the goalpost-shifting in “AI”. That’s the metaphor: it would clearly be absurd for engineers to define Jesus by some examples of capabilities. People who are waiting for the second coming won’t be satisfied. In the lab we maybe should define AI by some set of capabilities. But clients, journalists etc. picture the Hollywood version, and narrowly fulfilling their spec won’t actually satisfy them.