2 ms·

Because while it’s mimicking a human kind of intelligence, it’s missing the kinds of intelligence that even basic mammals have. One example: it has no concept

Because while it’s mimicking a human kind of intelligence, it’s missing the kinds of intelligence that even basic mammals have. One example: it has no concept of objects and permanence. Something even my dog has. Want an example? Watch Gotham Chess on YouTube play it at chess and you’ll see it not only doesn’t understand the rules of the game, it can’t even remember which pieces are on the board!

dj_mc_merlin 3y ago
Dogs can't use complex language at all, so it's also missing a kind of intelligence that the model has. It is not surprising that a pattern matching device tuned to just text (and some 2d images I believe?) doesn't have a great understanding of concepts that are obvious in the physical world. It's more surprising that it is often able to approximate pretty well without having any first hand data about it.
- scott_w 3y ago
  You’re right, dogs can’t do that. That’s because intelligence is clearly a multi faceted and extremely complex concept to define. It’s so difficult to define, in fact, that it seems we’re only able to do so by pointing at things and going “that’s not it.” That’s not moving the goalposts at all. If it were, we’d have stopped at search algorithms back in the 60s and declared AI to be “solved.” You mention the physical world, so let’s talk about self driving cars, the last thing we thought would be “AI” just a decade ago. It’s 2023, and Tesla still can’t stop their cars driving into concrete barriers. Something that the system was built for and, again, pretty much every animal can do without thinking. All of these systems and research definitely get us closer to understanding intelligence (and maybe creating AI one day) but to say they are intelligent is to ignore your own intelligence that knows they obviously are not.

dj_mc_merlin 3y ago

Dogs can't use complex language at all, so it's also missing a kind of intelligence that the model has. It is not surprising that a pattern matching device tuned to just text (and some 2d images I believe?) doesn't have a great understanding of concepts that are obvious in the physical world. It's more surprising that it is often able to approximate pretty well without having any first hand data about it.

scott_w 3y ago
You’re right, dogs can’t do that. That’s because intelligence is clearly a multi faceted and extremely complex concept to define. It’s so difficult to define, in fact, that it seems we’re only able to do so by pointing at things and going “that’s not it.” That’s not moving the goalposts at all. If it were, we’d have stopped at search algorithms back in the 60s and declared AI to be “solved.” You mention the physical world, so let’s talk about self driving cars, the last thing we thought would be “AI” just a decade ago. It’s 2023, and Tesla still can’t stop their cars driving into concrete barriers. Something that the system was built for and, again, pretty much every animal can do without thinking. All of these systems and research definitely get us closer to understanding intelligence (and maybe creating AI one day) but to say they are intelligent is to ignore your own intelligence that knows they obviously are not.