3 ms·

> He's arguing because it's artificial it shouldn't be called artificial. No, he's arguing that it shouldn't be called intelligent because it is not.

defaultname 4y ago
[dead]
echelon 4y ago
I think we'll find out that neither are we. I'd wager that there are a handful of breakthroughs we'll make in the next decade and a half that will give us the keys to unlocking human-level intelligence. And from there, we'll quickly be relegated to the bottom of the "intelligence" food chain. Our brains are using some clever tricks. There's no magic at all.
Spivak 4y ago
Eh it doesn’t have to be AGI to be intelligent. We call playing computer opponents in games “verses the AI” and they’re dumb as rocks in some cases. Intelligence how we actually use the term just means semi-autonomous decision making system — from how to flank you in CoD, to the best move in chess, to the best move in tic tac toe, to the best reply in a chat.
Buttons840 4y ago
> it shouldn't be called intelligent We don't call it "intelligent" or "intelligence", we call it "artificial intelligence". Adjectives matter. Furthermore, what is intelligence? Define it. Is an ant intelligent? Is a microbe which exhibits simple yet effective behavior intelligent? Is a machine that can play chess far better than any other known lifeform intelligent?
- erikerikson 4y ago
  Adjectives do matter. The author seemed to clearly express the opinion that our systems are not expressing intelligence artificial or otherwise. The author also expressed some attributes of what they regard as intelligence but that our systems are not exhibiting. Personally, I am a fan of "efficient cross domain maximization" as a definition but I feel it only implies the self establishment of value systems over the relative values of domains. The reality is that we don't have a perfect definition of intelligence or the spectrum but we roughly hold up ourselves as the example. This is a deep topic I'm not going to burn further time on for HN. I'd suggest that intelligence is an emergent property of the interaction of dumb systems. The lack of a clear line is a symptom of our lack of clear definition. More impactfuly, or lack of understanding of how brains produce/host it. I think a real objection is that the user of the term of AI is associated with the disappointment and drying up of funding in academic research that had been correlated to irresponsible use of the language. The apologists came up with AGI but this is humans. Some people think their marketing benefits by saying "AI" and most of the world has neither the expertise or product knowledge to call them on it. So too do we have a word "literally" with a definition of "figuratively".

defaultname 4y ago

[dead]

echelon 4y ago

I think we'll find out that neither are we. I'd wager that there are a handful of breakthroughs we'll make in the next decade and a half that will give us the keys to unlocking human-level intelligence. And from there, we'll quickly be relegated to the bottom of the "intelligence" food chain. Our brains are using some clever tricks. There's no magic at all.

Spivak 4y ago

Eh it doesn’t have to be AGI to be intelligent. We call playing computer opponents in games “verses the AI” and they’re dumb as rocks in some cases. Intelligence how we actually use the term just means semi-autonomous decision making system — from how to flank you in CoD, to the best move in chess, to the best move in tic tac toe, to the best reply in a chat.

Buttons840 4y ago

> it shouldn't be called intelligent We don't call it "intelligent" or "intelligence", we call it "artificial intelligence". Adjectives matter. Furthermore, what is intelligence? Define it. Is an ant intelligent? Is a microbe which exhibits simple yet effective behavior intelligent? Is a machine that can play chess far better than any other known lifeform intelligent?

erikerikson 4y ago
Adjectives do matter. The author seemed to clearly express the opinion that our systems are not expressing intelligence artificial or otherwise. The author also expressed some attributes of what they regard as intelligence but that our systems are not exhibiting. Personally, I am a fan of "efficient cross domain maximization" as a definition but I feel it only implies the self establishment of value systems over the relative values of domains. The reality is that we don't have a perfect definition of intelligence or the spectrum but we roughly hold up ourselves as the example. This is a deep topic I'm not going to burn further time on for HN. I'd suggest that intelligence is an emergent property of the interaction of dumb systems. The lack of a clear line is a symptom of our lack of clear definition. More impactfuly, or lack of understanding of how brains produce/host it. I think a real objection is that the user of the term of AI is associated with the disappointment and drying up of funding in academic research that had been correlated to irresponsible use of the language. The apologists came up with AGI but this is humans. Some people think their marketing benefits by saying "AI" and most of the world has neither the expertise or product knowledge to call them on it. So too do we have a word "literally" with a definition of "figuratively".