3 ms·

You just explained how abstraction and intelligence in general works. > but can consistently replicate not only its training but even more beyond that We call

You just explained how abstraction and intelligence in general works. > but can consistently replicate not only its training but even more beyond that We call that generalization. No?

somenameforme 4y ago
Intelligence isn't especially well defined, so you end up lost in a semantic jungle there if you don't really define what you're talking about. In this context, I think most of us are implicitly talking about intelligence such as we would associate with humans. And what is that? 50,000 years ago we knew basically nothing, and even language itself may not have been developed. Now? We've discovered the secrets of the atom, put a man on the moon, and more. We seem to have clearly gone well beyond any reasonable interpretation of what our "training set" at the time was, and at an unbelievably rapid pace if one considers how extremely inefficient our march forward (and sometimes backward) is. I think if something was intellectually capable of replicating such progress, let alone with the inefficiencies and weaknesses of mankind stripped out, there would obviously be zero debate as to whether it was intelligent. Just think about the implications. Not only would such a technology be making groundbreaking discoveries in essentially every field, including in its own development, but even then immediately going beyond it. Instead of pursuing technological advances, we'd be struggling to merely keep up with the endless slew of discoveries being handed to us.
- SanderNL 4y ago
  I agree word play is always an issue. Keep in mind we start over every generation. We keep training on new data. I've also thought about human development and what I find interesting is that an anatomical modern human is not automatically capable of forming modern civilization (see isolated tribes still living and general hunter gatherer history in general). There is so, so much that depends on emergent factors like some sort of global or societal intelligence. I'm thinking AI has the same characteristics. It's not about the individuals, it's about "society". > 50,000 years ago we knew basically nothing, and even language itself may not have been developed I think language is substantially older than that, but it is a hot area of debate.

You just explained how abstraction and intelligence in general works. > but can consistently replicate not only its training but even more beyond that We call that generalization. No?

somenameforme 4y ago

Intelligence isn't especially well defined, so you end up lost in a semantic jungle there if you don't really define what you're talking about. In this context, I think most of us are implicitly talking about intelligence such as we would associate with humans. And what is that? 50,000 years ago we knew basically nothing, and even language itself may not have been developed. Now? We've discovered the secrets of the atom, put a man on the moon, and more. We seem to have clearly gone well beyond any reasonable interpretation of what our "training set" at the time was, and at an unbelievably rapid pace if one considers how extremely inefficient our march forward (and sometimes backward) is. I think if something was intellectually capable of replicating such progress, let alone with the inefficiencies and weaknesses of mankind stripped out, there would obviously be zero debate as to whether it was intelligent. Just think about the implications. Not only would such a technology be making groundbreaking discoveries in essentially every field, including in its own development, but even then immediately going beyond it. Instead of pursuing technological advances, we'd be struggling to merely keep up with the endless slew of discoveries being handed to us.

SanderNL 4y ago
I agree word play is always an issue. Keep in mind we start over every generation. We keep training on new data. I've also thought about human development and what I find interesting is that an anatomical modern human is not automatically capable of forming modern civilization (see isolated tribes still living and general hunter gatherer history in general). There is so, so much that depends on emergent factors like some sort of global or societal intelligence. I'm thinking AI has the same characteristics. It's not about the individuals, it's about "society". > 50,000 years ago we knew basically nothing, and even language itself may not have been developed I think language is substantially older than that, but it is a hot area of debate.