4 ms·
I’m not saying AI isn’t impressive I’m saying we don’t know the limit… is your point that chess mastery is a sign of superintelligence and driving is not?
by onethought 5y ago
I’m not saying AI isn’t impressive I’m saying we don’t know the limit… is your point that chess mastery is a sign of superintelligence and driving is not?
- dane-pgp 5y agoI agree we don't know the limit, but I think we can safely say that a machine can be at least as capable as the human mind, since we could in principle reverse engineer that. I would also say that the upper limit must also include the level of intelligence of a whole society working together towards something, because none of us are as smart as all of us. What's more relevant, though, is that we don't know what the progress curve looks like that passes through "superhuman ability at multiplying numbers" then "at playing chess" then "at playing go" then "at writing novels" then "at developing AI". If, on average, there are a few decades between each of those steps, and these are roughly linear steps, then we might not need to worry much for another generation, but if the progress curve is exponential then it might already be too late.
- onethought 5y agoActually we’ve only proved close system AI. But not open system (I.e reality). It’s definitely not exponential growth… it’s more like logarithmic.