4 ms·

What is baffling to me is how otherwise intelligent people don't really understand what human intelligence and learning are about. They are about a biological o

• t43562 1y ago
  ...because so far only our attempts to copy nature have proven successful...in that we have judged the result "intelligent". There's a long history in AI where neural nets were written off as useless (Minsky was the famous destroyer of the idea, I think) and yet in the end they blew away the alternatives completely. We have something now that's useful in that it is able to glom a huge amount of knowledge but the cost of doing so it tremendous and therefore in many ways it's still ridiculously inferior to nature because it's only a partial copy. A lot of science fiction has assumed that robots, for example, would automatically be superior to humans - but are robots self-repairing or self replicating? I was reading recently about how the reasons why many developers like python are the reasons why it can never be made fast. In other words you cannot have everything - all features come at a cost. We will probably have less human and more human AIs because they will offer us different trade offs.