Artificial Intelligence Is Already Weirdly Inhuman

Post by teddyh » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

ectoplasm wrote: post #79

teddyh wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is not what I meant – the choice itself is not made rationally, even though a theoretical rational actor might have made the same choice. The most we humans can do it to make an intuitive choice, allow the post-hoc rationalization to occur and then check its rationality by analyzing its logic. If the logic is bad, we go back and try another intuitive choice.

By your own logic, you just made an intuitive decision about whether I have a point, and now you're just rationalizing it. Not much point in trying to have a rational conversation.

Post by merb » Fri, Aug 07, 2015, 10:06 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #59

iofj wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that chess engines are heuristics based hill-climbers (essentially they enumerate all their options, then optimize that process). That these don't respond the way a human mind does is quite understandable. Deep-learning networks should already be a lot closer to how a human mind would react.

I disagree. Only because the architecture reminds one more of a brain this doesn't imply that it "thinks" even remotely similar to a brain, a human brain at that.