3 ms·

The rebuttal to this view is "provide a principled definition of intelligence". Doesn't seem like the article does this. A hint appears partway through: "compu

by slibhb 6y ago

The rebuttal to this view is "provide a principled definition of intelligence". Doesn't seem like the article does this. A hint appears partway through: "computers will not be able to match humans in their ability to reason abstractly about real-world situations". Does human intelligence distinguish itself by its "abstractness" and by its application to "the real world"? There's also "the systems do not form the kinds of semantic representations and inferences that humans are capable of". Seems like a promising direction for some definition of intelligence. For my money, we will never consider any machine intelligent as long as we mass produce it. The only way we'll accept machines as intelligent is if, as the singularity theorists say, the machines build themselves. Then we aren't really mass producing them, we're just kicking off a process that we don't totally understand, a bit like gestation.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> For my money, we will never consider any machine intelligent as long as we mass produce it. We won't consider machines intelligent until they have and demonstrate the capacity to consider us not-intelligent. It's an open question of how long we will consider anything after that point.
- tachyonbeam 6y ago
  > We won't consider machines intelligent until they have and demonstrate the capacity to consider us not-intelligent. I don't think it needs to go that far. Birds that can solve simple puzzles are obviously intelligent, so are cats who can open doors, etc. I think the human perception if intelligence is hugely based on the notion of, "is this thing self-aware?" or "is there someone in there?", "does it have a mind of its own?" I would say we'll consider machines intelligent when they're able to have some amount of independence. Right now, they can't solve problems they're not specifically designed/engineered to solve. We don't have any kind of general-purpose artificial intelligence. You might try to argue that reinforcement learning is that, but no, RL doesn't really work outside of a sandbox with an artificial reward function, and it's very sensitive to hyper-parameters. If you could have a chat bot that can pass the Turing Test with a high degree of success, I think most people would consider that intelligent. Same thing for a robot that can do your laundry, wash your dishes and make some mac and cheese without days of training and without fucking up more than a typical human child would.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  We won't consider machines intelligent until they have and demonstrate the capacity to consider us not-intelligent. I can't see how this claim is even slightly illuminating aside from it's pure "quip-ness". A robot playing, say, the game of go, might spit-out "you are not intelligent" whenever it wins. Is that "the capacity to consider us not-intelligent"? You could even set-up a micro-world where virtual entities interact, evolve and rate their opponent. It wouldn't be hard for these entities to compete with humans in this arena, to do better than humans and so to give human poor poor evaluations but the entities to be pretty simplistic and far from what humans consider intelligent and far from fit outside the micro-world (you could do it with adaptive game-theory solvers, say).
joe_the_user 6y ago
The rebuttal to this view is "provide a principled definition of intelligence". Doesn't seem like the article does this. If someone could do that, it would be a significant stride towards producing an intelligent entity. As far as "AI research" we're somewhat stuck in the position that humans "can't define intelligence but know it when they see it". But if we abandon this intuition based approach, it seems like we wind-up with the argument, "this toaster is intelligent 'cause you can't prove it's not".

by slibhb 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> For my money, we will never consider any machine intelligent as long as we mass produce it. We won't consider machines intelligent until they have and demonstrate the capacity to consider us not-intelligent. It's an open question of how long we will consider anything after that point.

tachyonbeam 6y ago
> We won't consider machines intelligent until they have and demonstrate the capacity to consider us not-intelligent. I don't think it needs to go that far. Birds that can solve simple puzzles are obviously intelligent, so are cats who can open doors, etc. I think the human perception if intelligence is hugely based on the notion of, "is this thing self-aware?" or "is there someone in there?", "does it have a mind of its own?" I would say we'll consider machines intelligent when they're able to have some amount of independence. Right now, they can't solve problems they're not specifically designed/engineered to solve. We don't have any kind of general-purpose artificial intelligence. You might try to argue that reinforcement learning is that, but no, RL doesn't really work outside of a sandbox with an artificial reward function, and it's very sensitive to hyper-parameters. If you could have a chat bot that can pass the Turing Test with a high degree of success, I think most people would consider that intelligent. Same thing for a robot that can do your laundry, wash your dishes and make some mac and cheese without days of training and without fucking up more than a typical human child would.
joe_the_user 6y ago
We won't consider machines intelligent until they have and demonstrate the capacity to consider us not-intelligent. I can't see how this claim is even slightly illuminating aside from it's pure "quip-ness". A robot playing, say, the game of go, might spit-out "you are not intelligent" whenever it wins. Is that "the capacity to consider us not-intelligent"? You could even set-up a micro-world where virtual entities interact, evolve and rate their opponent. It wouldn't be hard for these entities to compete with humans in this arena, to do better than humans and so to give human poor poor evaluations but the entities to be pretty simplistic and far from what humans consider intelligent and far from fit outside the micro-world (you could do it with adaptive game-theory solvers, say).

joe_the_user 6y ago

The rebuttal to this view is "provide a principled definition of intelligence". Doesn't seem like the article does this. If someone could do that, it would be a significant stride towards producing an intelligent entity. As far as "AI research" we're somewhat stuck in the position that humans "can't define intelligence but know it when they see it". But if we abandon this intuition based approach, it seems like we wind-up with the argument, "this toaster is intelligent 'cause you can't prove it's not".