> We have "big data". We have (brittle and rather poor) "pattern recognition". We have (very limited) "simulate a conversation". Yes, yes, yes, exactly. > We

> We have "big data". We have (brittle and rather poor) "pattern recognition". We have (very limited) "simulate a conversation". Yes, yes, yes, exactly. > We have NO artificial intelligent systems, for any sensible definition of "intelligent". None. ZERO. Yes, though -- what are some of your sensible definitions of intelligence? > But we do not even know what "intelligence" really means! ...oh. I mean, you're not wrong, we don't know. But then how can you argue that AI isn't "intelligent"? What if human "intelligence" really just is pattern recognition too? With maybe some theory of mind, executive function, and "reasoning" -- Mike complains machines can't do thinking in the sense of "high level" reasoning, though one could argue they just don't have enough training data here. And everything else is emergent? Then we're maybe not as super far off. I'm reminded of the Arthur C. Clarke quote [0]: > If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong. [0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/remembering-sir-arthur-c/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/remembering-sir-a...