4 ms·

It is intelligent enough to learn how to operate a car and navigate complex environments with other actors in it. To me that is enough to call it intelligent, h

It is intelligent enough to learn how to operate a car and navigate complex environments with other actors in it. To me that is enough to call it intelligent, how much intelligence do you want to see in a process before you start calling it intelligent?

coldtea 4y ago
Well, my DSP chip is "intelligent" enough to decode video then...
- Jensson 4y ago
  Did the chip learn to decode videos based on trial and error, or seeing examples? Otherwise I don't see how what you said is relevant here. Our genes don't know how to drive cars, but our subconsciousness still can do it with practice, driving cars isn't coded into humans, it is emergent behaviour.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    Well, the subconsciouss didn't learn it by itself either, we taught ourselves how to drive by conscious learning (like, you know, getting driving lessons and passing our licesnse exams). Then we can use that learned behavior on autopilot, but that's another thing.
narag 4y ago
It is intelligent enough to learn how to operate a car... You are identifying "subconscious" as in "I did it without minding it" with "subconscious" as a structured personality inside your mind with autonomous will and reasoning. When you learn to do something physical, like driving or playing the piano, you start with a strong conscious focus in what you're doing, until you have it automated and, once you have it totally mastered, you send it to the background. That's a very different story from a whole "you", different from the "regular you", thinking rationally inside your mind and making all the things that you don't feel you're doing with your full attention. And yes, there are unconscious processes that influence behaviour, only they're not organized the same way the conscious part is. At least, that's the conclusion I take from what I've read on the subject. Are modern researchers right and Freud wrong? I tend to think so, because they have a hundred years more evidence.

coldtea 4y ago

Well, my DSP chip is "intelligent" enough to decode video then...

Jensson 4y ago
Did the chip learn to decode videos based on trial and error, or seeing examples? Otherwise I don't see how what you said is relevant here. Our genes don't know how to drive cars, but our subconsciousness still can do it with practice, driving cars isn't coded into humans, it is emergent behaviour.
- coldtea 4y ago
  Well, the subconsciouss didn't learn it by itself either, we taught ourselves how to drive by conscious learning (like, you know, getting driving lessons and passing our licesnse exams). Then we can use that learned behavior on autopilot, but that's another thing.

narag 4y ago

It is intelligent enough to learn how to operate a car... You are identifying "subconscious" as in "I did it without minding it" with "subconscious" as a structured personality inside your mind with autonomous will and reasoning. When you learn to do something physical, like driving or playing the piano, you start with a strong conscious focus in what you're doing, until you have it automated and, once you have it totally mastered, you send it to the background. That's a very different story from a whole "you", different from the "regular you", thinking rationally inside your mind and making all the things that you don't feel you're doing with your full attention. And yes, there are unconscious processes that influence behaviour, only they're not organized the same way the conscious part is. At least, that's the conclusion I take from what I've read on the subject. Are modern researchers right and Freud wrong? I tend to think so, because they have a hundred years more evidence.