4 ms·

It's odd to take an anecdote about what a person did thousands of years ago (assuming Archimedes actually existed, I suppose we have decent evidence) and use th

by drcode 5y ago

It's odd to take an anecdote about what a person did thousands of years ago (assuming Archimedes actually existed, I suppose we have decent evidence) and use that as the gold standard for how the human mind functions.

chmsky00 5y ago
Assuming there is a gold standard for intelligence, acting as if we can replicate what it took a universe millions of years to stumble into, by etching into silicon some algorithms that have meaning to us specifically, then seeing that as an autonomous experience acquiring organism is odd.
sdenton4 5y ago
Chess and Go were beaten, and the AI goalpost had to move /somewhere/...
- taneq 5y ago
  Some day we may reach the point where we realise humans don’t qualify as AI either.
  - Cipater 5y ago
    The "A" in AI stands for "artificial". Intelligence demonstrated by machines. Human intelligence is natural intelligence.
CaptArmchair 5y ago
First, there's plenty established historical evidence that supports Archimedes existence. I'm not sure why you doubt this. Second, the article uses the story of Archimedes Principle as one of several examples to illustrate in an digestible manner what an "Insight problem" is, how it differs from a "Path problem", and how that difference impedes AI from matching human intelligence. At no point did the author presume that Archimedes "Eureka!" moment is a "gold standard" by which to compare the performative functioning of modern day, digital based AI. Third, consider that this blogpost / essay is target a wider audience beyond the field of artificial intelligence. As the impressum in the footer of the site reads: > Illuminating the bold ideas and voices that make up the MIT Press's expansive catalog. We publish thought-provoking excerpts, interviews, and original essays written for a general reader but backed by academic rigor.
alex_smart 5y ago
That's being disingenuous to the point being made in the article. Archimedes's example is only given as an instance of the insight problem. I am sure you can construct such examples specific to any domain. That particular example was probably chosen because it would be familiar to a general audience, but the overall point is solid. Humans have made some rather remarkable feats of intellectual achievements. Could AI have discovered relativity or evolution for instance?

by drcode 5y ago

chmsky00 5y ago

Assuming there is a gold standard for intelligence, acting as if we can replicate what it took a universe millions of years to stumble into, by etching into silicon some algorithms that have meaning to us specifically, then seeing that as an autonomous experience acquiring organism is odd.

sdenton4 5y ago

Chess and Go were beaten, and the AI goalpost had to move /somewhere/...

taneq 5y ago
Some day we may reach the point where we realise humans don’t qualify as AI either.
- Cipater 5y ago
  The "A" in AI stands for "artificial". Intelligence demonstrated by machines. Human intelligence is natural intelligence.

CaptArmchair 5y ago

First, there's plenty established historical evidence that supports Archimedes existence. I'm not sure why you doubt this. Second, the article uses the story of Archimedes Principle as one of several examples to illustrate in an digestible manner what an "Insight problem" is, how it differs from a "Path problem", and how that difference impedes AI from matching human intelligence. At no point did the author presume that Archimedes "Eureka!" moment is a "gold standard" by which to compare the performative functioning of modern day, digital based AI. Third, consider that this blogpost / essay is target a wider audience beyond the field of artificial intelligence. As the impressum in the footer of the site reads: > Illuminating the bold ideas and voices that make up the MIT Press's expansive catalog. We publish thought-provoking excerpts, interviews, and original essays written for a general reader but backed by academic rigor.

alex_smart 5y ago

That's being disingenuous to the point being made in the article. Archimedes's example is only given as an instance of the insight problem. I am sure you can construct such examples specific to any domain. That particular example was probably chosen because it would be familiar to a general audience, but the overall point is solid. Humans have made some rather remarkable feats of intellectual achievements. Could AI have discovered relativity or evolution for instance?