4 ms·
That's not the definition the mainstream AI community has taken, for what I think are largely good reasons, but you could define intelligence that way if you wa
by davmre 12y ago
That's not the definition the mainstream AI community has taken, for what I think are largely good reasons, but you could define intelligence that way if you wanted. It's only a renaming of the debate though - instead of calling the things we're worried about "intelligent machines", you'd now call them "very effective control systems".
The issue is still the same: if a system that doesn't perfectly share your goals is making decisions more effectively than you, it's cold comfort to tell yourself "this is just a control system, it's not really intelligent". As Gary Kasparov can confirm, a system with non-human reasoning patterns is still perfectly capable of beating you.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoYeah you can imagine a lizard brain being introduced into a biomechanic machine to calculate chess moves. It doesn't make a lizard more intelligent, or even add intelligence to the lizard. If we don't regard intelligence as something different from control, then I guess birds are the most intelligent because they can navigate complex air currents. Etc. That is a poor definition of intelligence, because its not helpful in distinguishing what we normally mean by 'smart' from mechanistic/logical systems. And the discussion of rogue AIs is all about intelligence gone awry. Does anybody fear a control system that mis-estimates the corn crop? No, its about a malicious non-empathetic machine entity that coldly calculates how to defeat us. And that requires more that the current AI's are delivering.