4 ms·
That's obviously subject to whatever your definition of "intelligence" is. The only reason why you can even disagree, is because we don't have an objective defi
by vibrunazo 14y ago
That's obviously subject to whatever your definition of "intelligence" is. The only reason why you can even disagree, is because we don't have an objective definition. So we could argue forever and not get anywhere.
But what matters, is that at the end of the day. For almost any practical and objective definition of "human intelligence" that you might write down. I can write a computer program that will follow those specs and execute it better than a human being. Today. Fact is, humans are nothing but machines and our computers are already better than us in most tasks. Talking about the point which "computers overtake human intelligence" is dismissing the hundreds of different sub-fields in AI research which already got way past that point. Not only with better processing (as you imply), but also with better algorithms than us.
Or we might stick with our current subjective and useless definitions of the word. And keep dreaming about how would it be when we get to somewhere undefined.
- zokier 14y ago> For almost any practical and objective definition of "human intelligence" that you might write down. I can write a computer program that will follow those specs and execute it better than a human being. Today. If that were true, how come humans are still superior in many (intelligence based) tasks? From games such as Go and Arimaa to more practical tasks such as laying out electronic parts on circuit boards (autorouting). Mix in self-learning and generality, and I doubt that a better computer program could be programmed today.
- marvin 14y agoI don't get your argument at all. As in, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. If you agree that computers will soon be capable of everything a human brain does, and that the brain is just a machine that could eventually be copied and improved, how could there _not_ be tremendous and unpredictable changes to the world when it happens? If humans create artificial minds that are able to operate on their own, what we decide are the important problems to work on could end up becoming a moot point. You can't really negotiate with someone who's a lot smarter than you (not more than a chimpanzee can negotiate with humans). If you're criticizing philosophers and researchers for "dreaming" about these ideas, you might want to have a look at some of the thoughts around what would happen if we created self-improving, human-level artificial intelligence. The consequences are potentially catastrophic to human existence, and hence justifies some effort even if you think it is completely unlikely. And whether it is unlikely or not is subject to strong debate. Have a look at http://singularity.org/research/ http://singularity.org/research/
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]