4 ms·

I think that specific one was where someone simulated the same number of neurons that a cat had. However it failed because a virtual neuron isn't the same as a

I think that specific one was where someone simulated the same number of neurons that a cat had. However it failed because a virtual neuron isn't the same as a cat's and the training algorithms obviously weren't very similar. Other AI projects vastly excel humans in some fields though (arguably chess is an example of this). This link seems to focus on decisions making and the ability to appear normal in general. In this way I strongly agree with you. I've never seen an AI chatbot that could hold a conversation as well as your average 4 year old.

coldtea 13y ago
>Other AI projects vastly excel humans in some fields though (arguably chess is an example of this). That would be relevant if the chess winning programs mimicked the way humans think -- so that the same intelligence could be transfered in other fields. As it is, it's no big fit with regards to AI to win in chess by pruning decision trees and the like -- and it's mostly non transferable to regular reasoning. It's like touting the fact that the computer can do 432342/4234234 million times faster than me as relevant to it being intelligent.
- Someone 13y ago
  "That would be relevant if the chess winning programs mimicked the way humans think -- so that the same intelligence could be transfered in other fields." If that were true for human intelligence, the Kasparovs and Carlsen's of the world could have lucrative side jobs solving e.g, protein folding problems. I don't think it is as black and white as you claim it to be.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >If that were true for human intelligence, the Kasparovs and Carlsen's of the world could have lucrative side jobs solving e.g, protein folding problems. Well, for one, great chess players are generally of higher IQ. So great chess and increased general intelligence ARE correlated. Now, why should being good at chess also apply to "protein folding"? If anything, following my logic it would be the opposite: protein folding is more like number crunching than like the way human chess players think about moves. If humans played chess like computers, then yes, they would also be good at protein folding. But humans do differently. For one, the don't actually consider millions of possible future moves. They prune much more intuitively and effectively than AI chess engines.
    - Someone 13y ago
      You argued: "That would be relevant if the chess winning programs mimicked the way humans think -- so that the same intelligence could be transfered in other fields." That implies that, in humans, intelligence in chess can be transferred to other fields. I pointed out that that certainly isn't universally true. I think that correlation is fairly poor. I also think the correlation between IQ and great chess playing is not that great, but don't have evidence for it. Chess playing _ability_, maybe, but good chess playing requires lots and lots of rote learning that the brightest humans might find too dull to spend their time on. Also, one can argue that your claim that humans "prune much more intuitively and effectively than AI chess engines." isn't true anymore. Humans prune more, yes, but they also cannot beat today's best computers, so the 'effectively' part is up for discussion. Maybe, they are pruning too much? Or is it just that their evaluation function is inferior?

coldtea 13y ago

>Other AI projects vastly excel humans in some fields though (arguably chess is an example of this). That would be relevant if the chess winning programs mimicked the way humans think -- so that the same intelligence could be transfered in other fields. As it is, it's no big fit with regards to AI to win in chess by pruning decision trees and the like -- and it's mostly non transferable to regular reasoning. It's like touting the fact that the computer can do 432342/4234234 million times faster than me as relevant to it being intelligent.

Someone 13y ago
"That would be relevant if the chess winning programs mimicked the way humans think -- so that the same intelligence could be transfered in other fields." If that were true for human intelligence, the Kasparovs and Carlsen's of the world could have lucrative side jobs solving e.g, protein folding problems. I don't think it is as black and white as you claim it to be.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >If that were true for human intelligence, the Kasparovs and Carlsen's of the world could have lucrative side jobs solving e.g, protein folding problems. Well, for one, great chess players are generally of higher IQ. So great chess and increased general intelligence ARE correlated. Now, why should being good at chess also apply to "protein folding"? If anything, following my logic it would be the opposite: protein folding is more like number crunching than like the way human chess players think about moves. If humans played chess like computers, then yes, they would also be good at protein folding. But humans do differently. For one, the don't actually consider millions of possible future moves. They prune much more intuitively and effectively than AI chess engines.
  - Someone 13y ago
    You argued: "That would be relevant if the chess winning programs mimicked the way humans think -- so that the same intelligence could be transfered in other fields." That implies that, in humans, intelligence in chess can be transferred to other fields. I pointed out that that certainly isn't universally true. I think that correlation is fairly poor. I also think the correlation between IQ and great chess playing is not that great, but don't have evidence for it. Chess playing _ability_, maybe, but good chess playing requires lots and lots of rote learning that the brightest humans might find too dull to spend their time on. Also, one can argue that your claim that humans "prune much more intuitively and effectively than AI chess engines." isn't true anymore. Humans prune more, yes, but they also cannot beat today's best computers, so the 'effectively' part is up for discussion. Maybe, they are pruning too much? Or is it just that their evaluation function is inferior?