3 ms·
The question of "human-level AI" isnt relevant to the field of AI as it exists. It's like someone in crypto talking about a future crypto-based financial syste
by mjburgess 4y ago
The question of "human-level AI" isnt relevant to the field of AI as it exists.
It's like someone in crypto talking about a future crypto-based financial system whilst at the same time being unable to processes basically any transactions, stabalise any currency, ensure any regulation, deal with any fraud, etc.
Or likewise, an MLM health company talking about cures for cancer all the while hocking vitamin supplements.
The question of what properties animals have which enable them to implement intelligence isn't relevant to whether correlative statistical techniques which capture word frequencies are "intelligence" -- inasmuch as vitamin 'science' isnt relevant to curing cancer.
This gross level of chalatanism, wishful-thinking, scamming, delusion and out-right fraud is overwhelming.
- olalonde 4y agoWho exactly is claiming to have solved human-level AI? Can you give some examples of "gross level of charlatanism, wishful-thinking, scamming, delusion and out-right fraud"? I genuinely haven't witnessed any of that. In my experience, most AI people acknowledge that the timeline for AGI is unknown and that it will most likely involve yet to be discovered algorithms, not just throwing more data/processing power at it.
- trention 4y ago>most AI people acknowledge that the timeline for AGI is unknown and that it will most likely involve yet to be discovered algorithms, not just throwing more data/processing power at it. Try telling that to Sutskever or Karpathy (or indeed a bunch of "rationalists" on twitter, at least a subset of which works in AI) because both of them have made the claim you assert you haven't seen.