4 ms·

I've thought about this a fair bit since I gained my own interest in AI, and for me its answered thus: Because science, in general, is pretty glum about intelli

I've thought about this a fair bit since I gained my own interest in AI, and for me its answered thus: Because science, in general, is pretty glum about intelligence - in that there is no definition for it, and its not very well understood at all. To the point where any real headway made on the subject runs into the religion question; and we all know that sci-fi authors/writers are terrible at religion, in general. Until there is a reliable definition of intelligence which addresses the substance that seems to be behind it, which science refuses to address (the soul), there won't be much progress from the sci-fi .. since the solution in the sci-fi world to the problems of all of sciences hole, is thus: there is more to us than intelligence. That's not something that a lot of folks can deal with, alas ..

qznc 12y ago
I believe once we have a good definition of intelligence, artificial intelligence is easy. This implies that the quest for artificial intelligence is also the quest for understanding human intelligence.
- noiv 12y ago
  I think intelligence highly depends on context. What looks smart here and now could lead to disaster somewhere else. Dolphins and crows appear intelligent only if they show human like behavior and choose the right lever to get perks. Would we survive long enough in their environment to look clever at all? On the other hand, every new chat AI got instantly challenged and this very place is littered with chat logs anecdotally proving individuals are still more clever than an AI. I mean we must be close, because asserting my parrot is clever provokes nothing similar. I'm sure a real AI wouldn't admit to be more intelligent than humans, because that - currently - doesn't sound like a survival strategy. Probably it is all about Bayes and whoever accumulated the right information has the advantage.
  - jimiwen 12y ago
    Bayes+++ the combination of structuring the a priori and perceiving the posteriori
    - fit2rule 12y ago
      .. in the context of survival. What if the first action of a 'real AI' is to switch itself off? We will have missed the forest for the trees. Maybe it happened already ..
      - jimiwen 12y ago
        at the moment only certain vertical trees work!!
      - walterbell 12y ago
        A singular singularity :)
  - qznc 12y ago
    I am not so sure about Bayes. Bayesianism is certainly a good tool for making rational decisions, but human intelligence usually does not look like rational decision making to me. Sometimes I wonder if our conscious mind is just a puppet and rationalization mechanism for our unconscious decision making process. This makes conscious decision making a farce.

qznc 12y ago

I believe once we have a good definition of intelligence, artificial intelligence is easy. This implies that the quest for artificial intelligence is also the quest for understanding human intelligence.

noiv 12y ago
I think intelligence highly depends on context. What looks smart here and now could lead to disaster somewhere else. Dolphins and crows appear intelligent only if they show human like behavior and choose the right lever to get perks. Would we survive long enough in their environment to look clever at all? On the other hand, every new chat AI got instantly challenged and this very place is littered with chat logs anecdotally proving individuals are still more clever than an AI. I mean we must be close, because asserting my parrot is clever provokes nothing similar. I'm sure a real AI wouldn't admit to be more intelligent than humans, because that - currently - doesn't sound like a survival strategy. Probably it is all about Bayes and whoever accumulated the right information has the advantage.
- jimiwen 12y ago
  Bayes+++ the combination of structuring the a priori and perceiving the posteriori
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    .. in the context of survival. What if the first action of a 'real AI' is to switch itself off? We will have missed the forest for the trees. Maybe it happened already ..
    - jimiwen 12y ago
      at the moment only certain vertical trees work!!
    - walterbell 12y ago
      A singular singularity :)
- qznc 12y ago
  I am not so sure about Bayes. Bayesianism is certainly a good tool for making rational decisions, but human intelligence usually does not look like rational decision making to me. Sometimes I wonder if our conscious mind is just a puppet and rationalization mechanism for our unconscious decision making process. This makes conscious decision making a farce.