4 ms·
You are making what I think of as the standard "game move" of the AI skeptic. Chess-playing skill was considered a marker of intelligence, but then AI solved it
by allturtles 4y ago
You are making what I think of as the standard "game move" of the AI skeptic. Chess-playing skill was considered a marker of intelligence, but then AI solved it, so it turns out it doesn't require "real" intelligence. 15 years later, neither does playing Jeopardy, it's "just" a clever Google search, that's not really intelligence. Now according to you, programming doesn't require real intelligence (and apparently neither does poetry writing, or essay writing, or any of the other things GPT can do).
In a few years, perhaps we will discover that medicine, law, the social sciences, accounting, financial advice, and white collar work generally speaking don't require intelligence either, and the only things left that will require "real" intelligence will be the building trades and maybe truck driving.
- 10xDev 4y agoNo, again we just discovered it only does well in constrained environments with well defined rules and a lot of data. Either that or something subjective that it can afford a lot of inaccuracy without looking totally stupid. It literally can't generalise to some basic logic problems just like AlphaZero is not going to be cooking your meals anytime soon. If to you that's ok, fantastic. But to compare what we got so far to something intelligent rather than seeing it as more of a calculator then you are totally misrepresenting it.
- tome 4y agoWhat's wrong with updating our definition of "intelligence" based on new data? 500 years ago people presumably thought that lifting heavy objects required "muscles". Nowadays you can do it with metal and hydraulics. Surely robots must therefore have muscles. If you deny that then you're shifting the "muscles" goalposts?!