3 ms·

Having discussions about what is "AI" without first defining it explicitly is usually a fruitless effort. Eventually someone will claim the goal posts are bein

Having discussions about what is "AI" without first defining it explicitly is usually a fruitless effort. Eventually someone will claim the goal posts are being moved and they will probably be right because there were never any to start with.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> Having discussions about what is "AI" without first defining it explicitly is usually a fruitless effort. Oh nonsense. AI: Artificial Intelligence. Artifical - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural. Intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. ChatGPT is certainly artificial, but it lacks the ability to apply knowledge and skills. It will do it, KIND OF, on the knowledge front, if you ASK it to, but we wouldn't call a car that moves when the accelerator is pressed a creature, nor would we call google intelligent because it can respond to queries when prompted. It's a machine. Firmly in the realm of a machine that responds to input from other actors to accomplish a task presented it. You can leave a ChatGPT instance running for a thousand years and it will never do anything until prompted. That's not intelligence. There's simply no debate here to be had. It's a CLEVER machine, and it does things a lot of previous machines could not, but a machine it remains nonetheless.
- jeremyjh 3y ago
  Yes. A lot of people get confused about goalposts because we had one idea for gauging or measuring intelligence (Turing test), and that idea turned out to be wrong. We don't know how to define intelligence, but we know it when we see it. ChatGPT has fooled a lot of people, but that is nothing new.
  - JHonaker 3y ago
    The Turing test has been a poor goalpost almost since its inception. It turns out, it doesn't require much to fool people. People thought ELIZA was going to eliminate the need for therapists and psychiatrists. Hell, ELIZA still beat ChatGPT 3.5 in terms of % of people that believed they were interacting with a human in a recent study! [1] Notice that we only properly identified humans about 60% of the time too. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/real-humans-appeared-human-63-of-the-time-in-recent-turing-test-ai-study/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/real-...
- amne 3y ago
  Then what you want is another type of AI: Autonomous Intelligence
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    Why do we need a new term when we haven't even built artificial intelligence yet?
    - amne 3y ago
      but we have artificial intelligence. it's just not autonomous. it doesn't popup a notification in the middle of the day saying "You know? I've been thinking about your issue you mentioned in the morning daily and I think you have a race condition. here's a link to a POC to see what I mean" That's what I mean by autonomous.
- HelloMcFly 3y ago
  > You can leave a ChatGPT instance running for a thousand years and it will never do anything until prompted. That's not intelligence. I do not see how this requirement you have stated is an inherent property of how you have defined "artificial" or "intelligence". I think what you have described fits more with the traditional depiction of AI, but I don't agree that it is inherent. Which I why I agree with the person you responded to: I think there is no consensus view on what is and isn't AI because people seem to have different tests, weights, etc. in their mind for what "counts". I think it's a bit of a pointless exercise, but a mildly interesting one at least.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > I think what you have described fits more with the traditional depiction of AI, but I don't agree that it is inherent. Because we've had software since the inception of computers that only does things as it's told and when it's told, and that's called... software, programs, apps, etc. Intelligence belies something entirely different in the minds of laypeople and many tech people alike. To assert otherwise is to upend an entire understood element of our shared culture for the purposes of marketing. It's ridiculous.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

> Having discussions about what is "AI" without first defining it explicitly is usually a fruitless effort. Oh nonsense. AI: Artificial Intelligence. Artifical - made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural. Intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. ChatGPT is certainly artificial, but it lacks the ability to apply knowledge and skills. It will do it, KIND OF, on the knowledge front, if you ASK it to, but we wouldn't call a car that moves when the accelerator is pressed a creature, nor would we call google intelligent because it can respond to queries when prompted. It's a machine. Firmly in the realm of a machine that responds to input from other actors to accomplish a task presented it. You can leave a ChatGPT instance running for a thousand years and it will never do anything until prompted. That's not intelligence. There's simply no debate here to be had. It's a CLEVER machine, and it does things a lot of previous machines could not, but a machine it remains nonetheless.

jeremyjh 3y ago
Yes. A lot of people get confused about goalposts because we had one idea for gauging or measuring intelligence (Turing test), and that idea turned out to be wrong. We don't know how to define intelligence, but we know it when we see it. ChatGPT has fooled a lot of people, but that is nothing new.
- JHonaker 3y ago
  The Turing test has been a poor goalpost almost since its inception. It turns out, it doesn't require much to fool people. People thought ELIZA was going to eliminate the need for therapists and psychiatrists. Hell, ELIZA still beat ChatGPT 3.5 in terms of % of people that believed they were interacting with a human in a recent study! [1] Notice that we only properly identified humans about 60% of the time too. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/real-humans-appeared-human-63-of-the-time-in-recent-turing-test-ai-study/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/12/real-...
amne 3y ago
Then what you want is another type of AI: Autonomous Intelligence
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  Why do we need a new term when we haven't even built artificial intelligence yet?
  - amne 3y ago
    but we have artificial intelligence. it's just not autonomous. it doesn't popup a notification in the middle of the day saying "You know? I've been thinking about your issue you mentioned in the morning daily and I think you have a race condition. here's a link to a POC to see what I mean" That's what I mean by autonomous.
HelloMcFly 3y ago
> You can leave a ChatGPT instance running for a thousand years and it will never do anything until prompted. That's not intelligence. I do not see how this requirement you have stated is an inherent property of how you have defined "artificial" or "intelligence". I think what you have described fits more with the traditional depiction of AI, but I don't agree that it is inherent. Which I why I agree with the person you responded to: I think there is no consensus view on what is and isn't AI because people seem to have different tests, weights, etc. in their mind for what "counts". I think it's a bit of a pointless exercise, but a mildly interesting one at least.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > I think what you have described fits more with the traditional depiction of AI, but I don't agree that it is inherent. Because we've had software since the inception of computers that only does things as it's told and when it's told, and that's called... software, programs, apps, etc. Intelligence belies something entirely different in the minds of laypeople and many tech people alike. To assert otherwise is to upend an entire understood element of our shared culture for the purposes of marketing. It's ridiculous.