4 ms·
> "Some program that self learned a (admittedly impressive) number of reactions based on seeing/playing a huge number of simulations is not intelligence so not
by andreilys 6y ago
> "Some program that self learned a (admittedly impressive) number of reactions based on seeing/playing a huge number of simulations is not intelligence so not AI."
Seems like with every breakthrough the goalpost of AI gets moved.
I believe a researcher coined a phrase for this but I can't remember what it was.
- jmkjaer 6y ago> I believe a researcher coined a phrase for this but I can't remember what it was. There's an article on Wikipedia called "AI effect", I don't know if that's what you had in mind. https://en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/AI_effect
- therealjumbo 6y agoIt doesn't get moved so much as we discover that a certain mathematical manipulation plus all our previous mathematical manipulations don't amount to an AI. It also seems like with every breakthrough this complaint is raised without addressing the underlying issues with the new AIs shortcomings. My hot take: true AI is so far out of reach of our ability it's not even funny, which makes the whole field either a search for the fountain of youth at worst, or at best a search for tools to inform humans or to replace humans in rote tasks. See https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0 https://youtu.be/orMtwOz6Db0
- trabant00 6y agoUmmm, no? AI means a clear thing: artificial _intelligence_. Depth-first search is not intelligence. Auto-generated algorithms that succeed on most of the training data is not intelligence. And that is obvious from the errors "AI" makes that a human would never do. For example, would you fool even a child with this? https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/s4DuKgTLnS4cngTyiqVkNC-970-80.jpg https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/s4DuKgTLnS4cngTyiqVkNC-970...
- joycian 6y agoSomeday, this line of argument is going to conclude that humans are not intelligent.