2 ms·
> We're developing ever more sophisticated narrow AI, not even taking baby steps to proper true AI. I'm fairly certain you cannot rigourously define "proper tr
by naasking 4y ago
> We're developing ever more sophisticated narrow AI, not even taking baby steps to proper true AI.
I'm fairly certain you cannot rigourously define "proper true AI", and I'm also fairly certain you don't mechanistically understand how humans think. This raises the question: where does your confidence that our current path is not pretty close to "proper true AI" and/or how humans think come from?
- mach1ne 4y agoThe only intelligence with human capabilities is, so far, human intelligence. We can see how nature incrementally improved 'the algorithm' when we look at other animals, from simpler ones to primates. We don't see the capabilities of even lower animals in modern deep learning based networks. We know these networks don't match in neural function what we see in biology. Whether deep learning will lead to the North Star of human intelligence is guesswork, and guesswork rarely works well with complex systems.
- naasking 4y ago> We don't see the capabilities of even lower animals in modern deep learning based networks Machine learning models have written multiple scholarly papers that have been accepted to prestigious journals. Find me a rabbit that did that.
- ImHereToVote 4y agoBut, but, but that is just tricks unlike human intelligence which is based on no trickery soul fuel. /s