4 ms·
> Well, if it was, it was a bad one, and in restrospect it's obvious. That's exactly the point - this keeps happening with various things. Having reasonable m
by FartyMcFarter 6y ago
> Well, if it was, it was a bad one, and in restrospect it's obvious.
That's exactly the point - this keeps happening with various things.
Having reasonable machine translation / playing chess / computer vision were all considered as AI problems at some point, now they're often dismissed as not being AI, depending on whether or not computers are seen as achieving them. Alternatively, progress in those problems is dismissed due to not having enough "understanding" or "abstraction", even if computers are way better than humans at solving them (e.g. Penrose's point about chess).
The goalposts keep moving so that AI is always what computers can't yet do.
- pm90 6y agoI’ll bite. So what? Goalposts changing isn’t some sign of shadiness. Science isn’t a soccer game. Goalposts change all the damn time. Newtonian physics was considered as something that explained almost everything. Then we discovered that it doesn’t really, there are other theories that are better in being able to account for experiments. It’s not some sign of some big con. There was a goal, it was achieved and we moved on to the next one.
- FartyMcFarter 6y agoTo use your physics analogy, the situation with Penrose and AI would be like someone going "see, Newtonian physics don't explain everything, I told you physics is unsolvable!".
- coldtea 6y ago>That's exactly the point - this keeps happening with various things. Well, that's not "goalpost moving" then, it's "improving our understanding and updating wrong notions we had".