2 ms·

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

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.