3 ms·
It's been 50 years or so that people are either waiting or fearing "AI". Yet we're absolutely nowhere. Watson or Deep Blue may be "impressive" but they're not
by martinced 14y ago
It's been 50 years or so that people are either waiting or fearing "AI".
Yet we're absolutely nowhere. Watson or Deep Blue may be "impressive" but they're not doing anything intelligent. No even remotely close to it.
"Siri: how can we solve the israelo-polestinian conflict while minimizing the number of human casualties?"
"Siri: how can I build a nuclear reactor that doesn't generate nasty byproducts and that doesn't go ape-monkey-shit should the sh!t hit the fan?"
I somehow really doubt I'll see real AI during my lifetime. OCR, finding patterns inside "big data", brute force searching, voice recognition, self-driving cars, etc. is not AI.
It's not because we can build "robots" mimicking stuff we do in an automated way ("I see a car coming at the right, let's slow down at this crossing") that we're getting closer to AI.
There's no thinking going on there.
I'm a bit surprised that a lot of people here seem to take it for granted that one day sentient Siri would answer like Leon when asked:
"Siri: what do you think about Asimov's three laws of robotics?"
; )
- dagw 14y ago"Siri: how can I build a nuclear reactor that doesn't generate nasty byproducts and that doesn't go ape-monkey-shit should the sh!t hit the fan?" And when we get to a point where a computer can give an answer to that question we'll be dismissing it as "not real AI" since all its doing is pattern matching against a database of known experimental results and pre-programmed properties of elements and sub-atomic particles or whatever. The reason we'll never see "real AI" is simply because as soon as computer scientists solve problem that used to be consider AI, it instantly becomes just another novel twist on a few obvious algorithms and the goalposts for Real AI will move a bit further down the field.