5 ms·
I'm a layman but I don't think that's fair. When I think about "good AI", that we haven't achieved yet, I think about Data from Star Trek. I'm pretty sure we'll
by kyberias 12y ago
I'm a layman but I don't think that's fair. When I think about "good AI", that we haven't achieved yet, I think about Data from Star Trek. I'm pretty sure we'll know when we've reached that level of AI. We're not there yet.
- patmcc 12y agoIf we had that, I suspect lots of people would say "ah, well, that's just a clever bit of programming - it's not really thinking/feeling/alive/conscious/whatever, so I'd hardly call that good AI". Also I'd bet the body helps - if you had a 'cloud' (not android) version of Data, people would be even harder to convince.
- bduerst 12y agoI've had those same discussions. The entertainment industry has set a pretty strange standard for A.I. with the general public. What A.I. will eventually become will probably be wildly different than a limited personification like Data in Star Trek. The first automobiles looked like horse-drawn carriages, so maybe it's not right to fault people for expecting A.I. to look like humans.
- andrew_gardener 12y agoWhat's they're trying to say is that the goal for what AI is supposed to be/achieve is always raising as when we actually reach the goal. The general the goal of AI is to do things only Humans can do (in the past this included chess or holding a semi-coherent conversation). Now its more focused on human consciousness like Data from Star Trek so their statement is fair enough.