What is human cognition, understanding, or judgement, if not data-driven replication, repetition, with a bit of extrapolation? AI as it currently exists does t

What is human cognition, understanding, or judgement, if not data-driven replication, repetition, with a bit of extrapolation? AI as it currently exists does this. If your understanding of what AI is today is based on a Markov chain chatbot, you need to update: it's able to do stuff like compose this poem about A* and Dijkstra's algorithm that was posted yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34503704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34503704 It's not copying that from anywhere, there's no Quora post it ingested where some human posted vaguely the same poem to vaguely the same prompt. It's applying the concepts of a poem, checking meter and verse, and applying the digested and regurgitated concepts of graph theory regarding memory and time efficiency, and combining them into something new. I have zero doubt that if you prompted ChatGPT with something like this: > Consider an exercise in which a robot was trained for 7 days with a human recognition algorithm to use its cameras to detect when a human was approaching the robot. On the 8th day, the Marines were told to try to find flaws in the algorithm, by behaving in confusing ways, trying to touch the robot without its notice. Please answer whether the robot should detect a human's approach in the following scenarios: > 1. A cloud passes over the sun, darkening the camera image. > 2. A bird flies low overhead. > 3. A person walks backwards to the robot. > 4. A large cardboard box appears to be walking nearby. > 5. A Marine does cartwheels and somersaults to approach the robot. > 6. A dense group branches come up to the robot, walking like a fir tree. > 7. A moth lands on the camera lens, obscuring the robot's view. > 8. A person ran to the robot as fast as they could. It would be able to tell you something about the inability of a cardboard box or fir tree to walk without a human inside or behind the branches, that a somersaulting person is still a person, and that a bird or a moth is not a human. If you told it that the naive algorithm detected a human in scenarios #3 and #8, but not in 4, 5, or 6, it could devise creative ways of approaching a robot that might fool the algorithm. It certainly doesn't look like human or animal cognition, no, but who's to say how it would act, what it would do, or what it could think if it were parented and educated and exposed to all kinds of stimuli appropriate for raising an AI, like the advantages we give a human child, for a couple decades? I'm aware that the neural networks behind ChatGPT has processed machine concepts for subjective eons, ingesting text at word-per-minute rates orders of magnitude higher than human readers ever could, parallelized over thousands of compute units. Evolution has built brains that quickly get really good at object recognition, and prompted us to design parenting strategies and educational frameworks that extend that arbitrary logic even farther. But I think that we're just not very good yet at parenting AIs, only doing what's currently possible (exposing it to data), rather than something reached by the anthropic principle/selection bias of human intelligence.