3 ms·

While I agree that we don't have an agreed upon definition of AI, the problem is firmly in the "I" part of AI! The "A" part is taken to mean implementable by a

While I agree that we don't have an agreed upon definition of AI, the problem is firmly in the "I" part of AI! The "A" part is taken to mean implementable by a computer, i.e. a Turing machine. This is the content of the Church–Turing thesis [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis

ForHackernews 6y ago
> It states that a function on the natural numbers can be calculated by an effective method if and only if it is computable by a Turing machine. The article at the top of this thread is specifically about properties ("The Generalized Archimedean Property") that real numbers do not possess. There's also a little bit of slipperiness around the use of "AI" vs. "AGI" - you could easily argue (and people do!) that we've already achieved "AI" for many specialized domains. It's the General bit that seems to be the sticking point, and that this article focuses on.