3 ms·

> by placing some special status on human like intelligence without recognizing the spectrum of natural intelligence You're right, yes, if you see it as the wh

by V__ 4y ago

> by placing some special status on human like intelligence without recognizing the spectrum of natural intelligence You're right, yes, if you see it as the whole spectrum, sure. I was more thinking about the colloquial meaning of an AI of human-like intelligence. My view was therefore from a different perspective: > So is the equation modeling your brain. I would argue that is still open to debate. Sure, if the universe is deterministic, then everything is just one big math problem. If there is some natural underlying randomness (quanta phenomena etc.) then maybe there is more than deterministic math to it. > We call that “reasoning” in most cases. Is a complex if-else-structure reasoning? Reasoning, to my, implies some sort of consciousness, and being able to "think". If a neural network doesn't know the answer, more thinking won't result in one. A human can (in some cases) reason about inputs and figure out an answer after some time, even if they didn't know it in the beginning.

zmgsabst 4y ago
> I was more thinking about the colloquial meaning of an AI of human-like intelligence. Then it sounds like we’re violently agreeing — I appreciate you clarifying. I try to avoid that mindset, because it’s possible that AI will become intelligent in a way unlike our own psychology, which is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history. My own view is that AI aren’t human-like, but are “intelligent” somewhere between insects and dogs. (At present.) > If a neural network doesn't know the answer, more thinking won't result in one. I think reinforcement learning contradicts that, but current AIs don’t use that ability dynamically. But GAN cycles and adversarial training for, eg, go suggest that AIs given time to contemplate a problem can self-improve. (That is, we haven’t implemented it… but there’s also no fundamental roadblock.)

by V__ 4y ago

zmgsabst 4y ago

> I was more thinking about the colloquial meaning of an AI of human-like intelligence. Then it sounds like we’re violently agreeing — I appreciate you clarifying. I try to avoid that mindset, because it’s possible that AI will become intelligent in a way unlike our own psychology, which is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history. My own view is that AI aren’t human-like, but are “intelligent” somewhere between insects and dogs. (At present.) > If a neural network doesn't know the answer, more thinking won't result in one. I think reinforcement learning contradicts that, but current AIs don’t use that ability dynamically. But GAN cycles and adversarial training for, eg, go suggest that AIs given time to contemplate a problem can self-improve. (That is, we haven’t implemented it… but there’s also no fundamental roadblock.)