> 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 clarify

> 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.)