4 ms·
So I think, almost by definition, we will never have AI because we’ll never achieve the goals of AI or cease to be caught up with it. Never is such a long time
by 3rd3 12y ago
So I think, almost by definition, we will never have AI because we’ll never achieve the goals of AI or cease to be caught up with it.
Never is such a long time. Maybe he is biased as an educator, i.e. not to discourage thinking because a machine might do it for you at some point in the future?
- nl 12y agoI think you missed the point. He's saying we won't the goals of AI because: "it’s a moving target" For example: "In the seventies, someone might ask “what are the goals of AI?” And you might say, “Oh, we want a computer who can beat a chess master, or who can understand actual language speech, or who can search a whole database very quickly.” We do all that now, like face recognition. All these things that we thought were AI, we can do them." This is very true.
- arketyp 12y agoI'm beginning to suspect Turing consciously captured the moving target definition when he conceived of his famous test.
- crimsonalucard 12y agoThe Turing Test is a fixed target though. As far as I know there are no limits on how intelligent something will get. Exploring the limits of AI is like trying to find the biggest possible number.
- eli_gottlieb 12y agoThat's true, but nowadays it's a little more like, "Well, we want a self-improving program with enough intelligence and moral fiber to radically improve human life on a scale not usually conceived of outside the Book of Isaiah." This may be absurdly ambitious, to the point of ridicule, but it's a concretely-defined target.