11–20 of 112 posts
Why do people think they can build anything worthy of the name "AI" by just fucking around with neural networks instead of by specifying exactly what sort of models and exactly what sort of inference constitute "intelligence" in the first place? It's like trying to build an airplane by studying hang-gliders instead of aerodynamics.
> It is easy to forget that the computer revolution was led by a handful of geniuses: individuals with truly unusual cognitive ability. Great man theory needs to be strangled and put to rest.
I thought it already was put to rest by nautil.us http://nautil.us/issue/21/information/the-man-who-tried-to-r... In summary, 1000+ IQ man will discover life is illogical and depressing. He won't do much good when he's so depressed.
Why do people think they can build anything worthy of the name "AI" by just fucking around with neural networks instead of by specifying exactly what sort of models and exactly what sort of inference constitute "intelligence" in the first place? It's like trying to build an airplane by studying hang-gliders instead of aerodynamics.
Why do people think they can build anything worthy of the name "AI" by just fucking around with neural networks instead of by specifying exactly what sort of models and exactly what sort of inference constitute "intelligence" in the first place? It's like trying to build an airplane by studying hang-gliders instead of aerodynamics.
I suspect someone will get some level of mega-expert system/simulated intelligence going sooner than later. Maybe something that can handle the types of commands you could give a dog and it being able to use enough fuzzy logic to work basic things out like, "Get me a coke from the fridge and then get my slippers."
That seems a lot more likely than suddenly birthing human-level AI from NN's. I think NN's will ultimately fail the same way planes work nothing like birds. Trying to copy a biological system very closely just doesn't make sense, at least most of the time.
Why do people think they can build anything worthy of the name "AI" by just fucking around with neural networks instead of by specifying exactly what sort of models and exactly what sort of inference constitute "intelligence" in the first place? It's like trying to build an airplane by studying hang-gliders instead of aerodynamics.
Baby steps.
Why do people think they can build anything worthy of the name "AI" by just fucking around with neural networks instead of by specifying exactly what sort of models and exactly what sort of inference constitute "intelligence" in the first place? It's like trying to build an airplane by studying hang-gliders instead of aerodynamics.
Because there's no known path to AI and articles like this are pretty much science fiction. Reminds me of that Georges Melies film about going to the moon in a cannon. We didn't have any ideas regarding rockets yet, so cannons it is. I suspect someone will get some level of mega-expert system/simulated intelligence going sooner than later. Maybe something that can handle the types of commands you could give a dog and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it already was put to rest by nautil.us http://nautil.us/issue/21/information/the-man-who-tried-to-r... In summary, 1000+ IQ man will discover life is illogical and depressing. He won't do much good when he's so depressed.
Sub-200 IQ men guessing what a 1000+ IQ man would do :).
One gargantuan thing the author didn't mention which will probably be responsible for rapidly rising perceived intelligence is the quality of living improvements that are underway for the world's poor. The more people raised to a standard of living that allows for the highest levels of education and divorce from economic necessity, the more superintelligent people we'll see in the world. It isn't because these people are dumb until they get money, it's because mathematical or scientific intelligence is not at all developed or rewarded under the current paradigm of poverty, leading to an appalling amount of intelligence-potential wasted. The rising worldwide standard of living is going to furnish us with more and more people who have the proper intelligence, training and mindset (most important items listed last!) to contribute to difficult problems.
> It is easy to forget that the computer revolution was led by a handful of geniuses: individuals with truly unusual cognitive ability. Great man theory needs to be strangled and put to rest.
You can expand the range of people with any plausible contribution until it's not, but doing so would be an ideological exercise at best.
Von Neumann, Shannon, Turing, Weiner, Hopper and many more, on through Wozniak, Torvalds, I could go on and on. There's nothing wrong with calling extraordinary intellect what it is.