3 ms·

When it works, it's no longer AI. I know I'm paraphrasing someone smarter than me there. (Edit: Larry Tesler maybe)

by flir 5y ago

Jensson 5y ago
People believe that achieving X means the agent will be intelligent and can thus do Y, Z, A, B, C etc. But then someone builds an agent that can do X, but it can't do anything else. So people don't view it as intelligent, since it doesn't do any of all the other things people associated with being able to do X. So it has nothing to do with being used to computers solving new problems, it is that we now realize that solving those problems doesn't really require the level of intelligence we thought it would. Of course solving new problems is great, but it isn't nearly as exciting as being able to create intelligent agents. Edit: And it isn't just hobbyists making this mistake, you see big AI researchers often make it as well and they have for a long time. You will find tons of articles of AI researchers saying something along the lines of "Now we solved X, therefore solving A, B, C, D, E, F is just around the corner!", but they basically never deliver on that. Intelligence was harder than they thought.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  Exactly. People make the case that something along the lines of AGI is necessary and sufficient for some task, then someone comes along and solve it with something completely unlike AGI, proving that it's not a necessary condition. Or in more straightforward but less precise terms, solving this is AI and then it isn't.
- IggleSniggle 5y ago
  So, our brains are just a little ecosystem of competing functions, and our pre-frontal cortex / prediction engine (the piece most AI researchers care about) is trained on species survival, but beholden to the "lizard brain." I'm still on the bandwagon that AGI is already solved, and we just don't recognize it because we aren't as complex or magical as we like to pretend we are. We are just currently selected-for species survival, and not even in the present environment as the dominant species of the planet. That doesn't make us "Generally intelligent" any more than many other systems on the planet (including the computational ones). I'm not even convinced that "intelligence" is especially a thing. If we're trying to replicate "human intelligence," then I think that's something else entirely, and would require removing a lot of capability from the AI that I don't think anybody would want to remove from AI, given that we have plenty of serviceable humans to do the work of human-intelligence style tasks. No, when folks say AGI, they mean "cares about the things I care about, and is more accurate, but can speak in a way I understand." But how is a network of neurons going to care about what you care about if they see the world in a different way, or have been trained on solving a different set of problems than "living a life as a human?" It just doesn't make sense to expect, or even want, human intelligence from a synthetic intelligence.

When it works, it's no longer AI. I know I'm paraphrasing someone smarter than me there. (Edit: Larry Tesler maybe)

by flir 5y ago

When it works, it's no longer AI. I know I'm paraphrasing someone smarter than me there. (Edit: Larry Tesler maybe)

People believe that achieving X means the agent will be intelligent and can thus do Y, Z, A, B, C etc. But then someone builds an agent that can do X, but it can't do anything else. So people don't view it as intelligent, since it doesn't do any of all the other things people associated with being able to do X. So it has nothing to do with being used to computers solving new problems, it is that we now realize that solving those problems doesn't really require the level of intelligence we thought it would. Of course solving new problems is great, but it isn't nearly as exciting as being able to create intelligent agents. Edit: And it isn't just hobbyists making this mistake, you see big AI researchers often make it as well and they have for a long time. You will find tons of articles of AI researchers saying something along the lines of "Now we solved X, therefore solving A, B, C, D, E, F is just around the corner!", but they basically never deliver on that. Intelligence was harder than they thought.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
Exactly. People make the case that something along the lines of AGI is necessary and sufficient for some task, then someone comes along and solve it with something completely unlike AGI, proving that it's not a necessary condition. Or in more straightforward but less precise terms, solving this is AI and then it isn't.
IggleSniggle 5y ago
So, our brains are just a little ecosystem of competing functions, and our pre-frontal cortex / prediction engine (the piece most AI researchers care about) is trained on species survival, but beholden to the "lizard brain." I'm still on the bandwagon that AGI is already solved, and we just don't recognize it because we aren't as complex or magical as we like to pretend we are. We are just currently selected-for species survival, and not even in the present environment as the dominant species of the planet. That doesn't make us "Generally intelligent" any more than many other systems on the planet (including the computational ones). I'm not even convinced that "intelligence" is especially a thing. If we're trying to replicate "human intelligence," then I think that's something else entirely, and would require removing a lot of capability from the AI that I don't think anybody would want to remove from AI, given that we have plenty of serviceable humans to do the work of human-intelligence style tasks. No, when folks say AGI, they mean "cares about the things I care about, and is more accurate, but can speak in a way I understand." But how is a network of neurons going to care about what you care about if they see the world in a different way, or have been trained on solving a different set of problems than "living a life as a human?" It just doesn't make sense to expect, or even want, human intelligence from a synthetic intelligence.