4 ms·

I think a fundamental stumbling block for a lot of AI critics is a lack of concept of "universal function approximation". NNs map inputs to outputs. Period. T

I think a fundamental stumbling block for a lot of AI critics is a lack of concept of "universal function approximation". NNs map inputs to outputs. Period. Theory of mind (or embodiment, or motivation, or "consciousness") really has nothing to do with task capability. The important questions to ask are "Is this task (and its strict definition including inputs and outputs) sufficiently analogous to what a human might do? Why or why not?". You could argue whether or not hooking together (enough of) an amalgamation of function approximators could emulate what we think of as General AI - but I think while you're busy saying it's impossible, someone with a supercomputer farm is going to do it and get useful work done.

vba616 4y ago
You can say the phrase "task capability", but where is it? I mean, where is the universal capability? The comment that you have responded to lists a bunch of examples that fit a pattern of very non universal capabilities. I think if anything was happening, it would be in Google Maps, in GCC, in Visual Studio, in image and 3D creation software, and everything else. Heck, when will Outlook have enough intelligence to free me from managing appointment and meeting reminders? I think it's sensible for an ordinary person to take the same attitude as with perpetual motion / free energy machines - the details don't matter, but can you sell me enough kilowatts to power my house (or car) or not? At what price?