3 ms·

It's the capacity to self program if you like - a human can learn anything, just tell him about the subject. A program can not. So, if an artificial informatio

It's the capacity to self program if you like - a human can learn anything, just tell him about the subject. A program can not. So, if an artificial information-sensing/learning program is not as strong at sensing information as the strongest information-sensing/learning machine that has ever existed - the human brain - then it cannot sense and learn information at any level? Wouldn't that be a strawman argument? You seem to be claiming that if artificial intelligence does not exist at a human level, that it therefore does not exist at any level. Why are you arbitrarily selecting human-level general intelligence as the only intelligence that could possibly exist? Your line of reasoning seems to imply that human olfactory nodes (sub-processors which help humans sense, and learn, smells) do not represent any level of intelligence at all, since they are not at the level of current human general-intelligence. Is a single-celled protozoan (e.g. ameba) intelligent? An invertebrate? A vertibrate? A lower-mammal? A non-human primate? Do you deny the possibility of biological evolution by natural-selection?

ars 18y ago
You seem to be claiming that if artificial intelligence does not exist at a human level, that it therefore does not exist at any level. Right now it doesn't - not at any level. There are no AI's that can self-program. So it's hardly a strawman argument. There are some that can learn the specifics of pre-programed concepts, but none that can self learn a new concept. That is something that most animals can do, but computers are not even close. Yes, human olfactory nodes do not have any intelligence at all - but not because "they are not at the level of current human general-intelligence", but because they can only do the single function they were created to do, and can not learn anything else. There are lines in intelligence - it's not a continuum. The first line, to use your example, is being able to recognize any human face after being programmed with a sample of human faces. The second line is to be able to recognize the concept of face of a different species, i.e. the concept of the "front" of a creature. AI has not even reached the second line. A next major line (I'm sure there are others before that) is being able to learn to self-program. This means: use only the IO of the program, and using that teach it something new, without sending any commands that change it's programming. I don't think AI will ever reach this, even though animals can do it to some degree. A further line is being able to create something new, not simply respond to requests. This does not mean a refinement of an existing technique, but something totally new. Not even all humans actually do this, it's in the realm of genius. I skipped the line separating animals from humans. But it is a line, it's not a matter of degree - there is a jump from non-sapient to sapient. Even the most retarded human is noticeably different from the smartest animal.

ars 18y ago

You seem to be claiming that if artificial intelligence does not exist at a human level, that it therefore does not exist at any level. Right now it doesn't - not at any level. There are no AI's that can self-program. So it's hardly a strawman argument. There are some that can learn the specifics of pre-programed concepts, but none that can self learn a new concept. That is something that most animals can do, but computers are not even close. Yes, human olfactory nodes do not have any intelligence at all - but not because "they are not at the level of current human general-intelligence", but because they can only do the single function they were created to do, and can not learn anything else. There are lines in intelligence - it's not a continuum. The first line, to use your example, is being able to recognize any human face after being programmed with a sample of human faces. The second line is to be able to recognize the concept of face of a different species, i.e. the concept of the "front" of a creature. AI has not even reached the second line. A next major line (I'm sure there are others before that) is being able to learn to self-program. This means: use only the IO of the program, and using that teach it something new, without sending any commands that change it's programming. I don't think AI will ever reach this, even though animals can do it to some degree. A further line is being able to create something new, not simply respond to requests. This does not mean a refinement of an existing technique, but something totally new. Not even all humans actually do this, it's in the realm of genius. I skipped the line separating animals from humans. But it is a line, it's not a matter of degree - there is a jump from non-sapient to sapient. Even the most retarded human is noticeably different from the smartest animal.