5 ms·

Yes, it's easy to be convinced on either side, the arguments write themselves. Yes, eventually a learning system might learn enough to be indistinguishable from

Yes, it's easy to be convinced on either side, the arguments write themselves. Yes, eventually a learning system might learn enough to be indistinguishable from intelligence. Or this might be entirely the wrong path and detracting from genuine new innovations in how we think about AI. We won't be able to tell whether it's AGI or just good enough at trained tasks to trick us.

exporectomy 5y ago
It can prove its intelligence by making testable predictions of the future better than us. As for whether it's "real" AGI or just acts like it, doesn't really matter. I think the Chinese room problem has been agreed on as not a problem, hasn't it?
- neltnerb 5y ago
  My last sentence was a statement of that problem, not a question.
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  > As for whether it's "real" AGI or just acts like it, doesn't really matter. Absolutely. The term "AGI" came about specifically to avoid existing philosophical arguments about "strong AI", "real AI", "synthetic intelligence", etc. Those wanting to discuss "true intelligence", etc. should use those other terms, or define new ones, rather than misuse the term AGI. AGI requires nothing more (or less!) than a widely-applicable optimisation algorithm. For example, it's easy to argue that a paperclip maximiser isn't "truly intelligent", but that won't stop it smelting your haemoglobin into more paperclips!
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  I think proof of “real” intelligence by answering harder and harder questions is barking up the wrong tree. I think evidence and proof are a better way to denote varying levels of understanding. A deductive system can come with an answer and a proof of that answer, where proof is whatever counts as proof in that system. So the notion of “does it really understand it’s answers” gets punted off its Q&A abilities and onto its ability to justify its answers.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    That's an interesting idea but it would exclude many humans who can make correct predictions using their experience and intuition but can't justify them correctly. Those people are still very useful. What you're describing is what we do at school. We can't assess understanding so we assess justification of answers as well as other things like ability to do X (we don't care if they understood or not, just be capable).
prometheus76 5y ago
Let's say I'm standing next to a table. The computer recognizes it as a table. Now I sit on the table. Is it a chair or a table now? Something that we do automatically is a LONG way away from being automatic for AI.

exporectomy 5y ago

It can prove its intelligence by making testable predictions of the future better than us. As for whether it's "real" AGI or just acts like it, doesn't really matter. I think the Chinese room problem has been agreed on as not a problem, hasn't it?

neltnerb 5y ago
My last sentence was a statement of that problem, not a question.
chriswarbo 5y ago
> As for whether it's "real" AGI or just acts like it, doesn't really matter. Absolutely. The term "AGI" came about specifically to avoid existing philosophical arguments about "strong AI", "real AI", "synthetic intelligence", etc. Those wanting to discuss "true intelligence", etc. should use those other terms, or define new ones, rather than misuse the term AGI. AGI requires nothing more (or less!) than a widely-applicable optimisation algorithm. For example, it's easy to argue that a paperclip maximiser isn't "truly intelligent", but that won't stop it smelting your haemoglobin into more paperclips!
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
I think proof of “real” intelligence by answering harder and harder questions is barking up the wrong tree. I think evidence and proof are a better way to denote varying levels of understanding. A deductive system can come with an answer and a proof of that answer, where proof is whatever counts as proof in that system. So the notion of “does it really understand it’s answers” gets punted off its Q&A abilities and onto its ability to justify its answers.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  That's an interesting idea but it would exclude many humans who can make correct predictions using their experience and intuition but can't justify them correctly. Those people are still very useful. What you're describing is what we do at school. We can't assess understanding so we assess justification of answers as well as other things like ability to do X (we don't care if they understood or not, just be capable).

prometheus76 5y ago

Let's say I'm standing next to a table. The computer recognizes it as a table. Now I sit on the table. Is it a chair or a table now? Something that we do automatically is a LONG way away from being automatic for AI.