4 ms·
I'm not saying that chess equals human-level intelligence. I'm saying that dismissing any progress in AI because it doesn't solve a corner case of a previously
by FartyMcFarter 6y ago
I'm not saying that chess equals human-level intelligence. I'm saying that dismissing any progress in AI because it doesn't solve a corner case of a previously important unsolved problem is moving the goalposts of AI research. Especially if dismissing the progress requires usage of fuzzy terms such as "understanding".
- simonh 6y agoRight, but I suspect what’s happening is the inverse. Things like a chess and image classifiers are special cases. They’re important problems of course, but they’re not core building blocks of general AI and mistaking them for that is, well, a mistake. And sure some people do that, like the famous comment on Slashdot that Alphago was a sign that general AI was imminent, but actual AI researchers know this is simply not the case. Discussions about be real human level AI do involve using poorly defined terms unfortunately, but that’s because we don’t actually understand general Intelligence. I think pinning down those concepts more concretely will be part of the process.