3 ms·
Ah, I get it, they concede AI is successful in practical applications, but that doesn't mean it's intelligent because various reasons, mostly that we care more
by visarga 4y ago
Ah, I get it, they concede AI is successful in practical applications, but that doesn't mean it's intelligent because various reasons, mostly that we care more about "achievements" than "real" intelligence. What's the difference?
I expected the article to talk about the actual problems - hallucinations, information manipulation errors and limited ability for planning.
- dundarious 4y agoI don't think that's what the article says: > LeCun expresses an engineer's concern that without true intelligence, such programs will ultimately prove brittle, meaning, they could break before they ever do what we want them to do. > "You know, I think it's entirely possible that we'll have Level 5 autonomous cars without common sense," LeCun told ZDNET, referring to the efforts of Waymo and others to build ADAS (advanced driver assistance systems) for self-driving, "but you're going to have to engineer the hell out of it." I think the discussion in the article is focused on "actual problems".