4 ms·
> But he _defines_ intelligence as the science of making machines do things that lead us to believe they are intelligent. A chess computer that outsmarts me mos
by alexfarran 17y ago
> But he _defines_ intelligence as the science of making machines do things that lead us to believe they are intelligent. A chess computer that outsmarts me most definitely fits that definition of intelligence.
No he doesn't. He defines AI that way, and that's the point. AI is an illusion of intelligence. He sees a danger in mistaking it for the real thing - in effect mistaking machines for people.
- Tichy 17y agoWhat's "the real thing"? Of course you could always define AI as "not real intelligence", then by definition AI will never be "really intelligent". It would not be a very interesting claim, though.
- jshen 17y agoIf it's brute force, i.e. chess programs, it's not real intelligence. If it is a statistical model that produces a result given an input it's seen before then it's not real intelligence. To me intelligences is the ability to learn by applying patterns/metaphors across domains. Computers aren't anywhere close to this.
- jacoblyles 17y agoApplying a statistical model trained on previously observed input is a reasonable description of much of human behavior.
- jshen 17y agoA chess program trained on previously observed input is not able to then learn how to paint, or drive a car, or play basketball. This is the difference.
- gizmo 17y agoYou're right, he defines AI that way. He seems afraid that robots will take on human responsibilities even though they're unable to feel or understand human emotions. That, I agree, may not work out so well. I don't see why we should have a different metric of intelligence for computers and humans, though.