2 ms·

Then you need to explain why statistics isn't enough to be intelligent. We are at the point where that isn't an obvious argument anymore and I'll point to the b

Then you need to explain why statistics isn't enough to be intelligent. We are at the point where that isn't an obvious argument anymore and I'll point to the best models as to why you might be wrong.

imiric 2y ago
Because being able to find patterns in large amounts of data will never make the system intuitively understand math[1], or history[2], or any other field. It will always depend on the data and biases we feed it, at least with the current approaches. You might say that this is how humans learn and demonstrate intelligence, but it's not the same thing. We have the ability to advance our understanding of the universe without being explicitly trained on every topic. Until we can build systems that can do this, I wouldn't label them as intelligent. But, again, this doesn't mean that they can't be useful. [1]: https://towardsdatascience.com/9-11-or-9-9-which-one-is-higher-6efbdbd6a025 https://towardsdatascience.com/9-11-or-9-9-which-one-is-high... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/08/we-definitely-messed-up-why-did-google-ai-tool-make-offensive-historical-images https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/08/we-defini...