5 ms·
One thing that bothers me when it comes to AI is how human centric the approach to AI is. We, humans, are the measuring stick. Fundamentally this approach is f
by x86x87 4y ago
One thing that bothers me when it comes to AI is how human centric the approach to AI is. We, humans, are the measuring stick.
Fundamentally this approach is flawed. Can one really talk about the intelligence without talking about the environment in which that intelligence manifests itself?
- ben_w 4y agoSure we can talk about intelligence, we have done for at least a century, but you're right the definition we use is anthropomorphic and almost certainly missing important things — as demonstrated by all the times computers did a task, widely regarded as emblematic of high intellect, at super-human levels, only for humanity to collectively shrug and say "not intelligence".
- sebzim4500 4y agoThis cycle of 1. AI will never be able to do X because that requires real intelligence/creativity 2. AI does X to a (super)human level 3. X does not require real intelligence/creativity, it is just search/statistics/etc. with increasingly difficult values of X can not possibly continue forever, right? And yet, it seems to happen so reliably.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y agoproblem is that at step 2, the super-human performance frequently turns out to have massive holes in it. Playing games with fixed rules is one exception, but most other things that "AI cannot do but now does" always come with a shift in our expectations. I would say that the very best "AI doing amazing shit" tends to be things never discussed in Ye Olde Literature. Google Maps is a premier example.
- x86x87 4y agoYes it's superhuman for a very narrow set of well defined tasks. We observe it and claim that AI is taking over.