Human intelligence is overrated (2012)

Post by tlb » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #18

> But the argument goes both ways here as well: take an arbitrary human (such as yourself, if you happen to be human) and try placing this human in the cockpit of a landing jet plane, in a semiconductor factory, in the oval office of the White House, in the kitchen of a gourmet restaurant, on a horseback in Siberia, or equipped with only a spear in the middle of the Amazonas jungle. There are humans that have been pr…

Post by crusso » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 4:27 PM UTC

Post by shawabawa3 » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

tlb wrote: post #21

rtkwe wrote: post #18

> But the argument goes both ways here as well: take an arbitrary human (such as yourself, if you happen to be human) and try placing this human in the cockpit of a landing jet plane, in a semiconductor factory, in the oval office of the White House, in the kitchen of a gourmet restaurant, on a horseback in Siberia, or equipped with only a spear in the middle of the Amazonas jungle. There are humans that have been pr…

That's partly because nobody has tried very hard to write one piece of software that's good at landing planes and being the president. Why not just write two pieces of software? What business model would a combined piece of software enable? Specialization of software is mostly a virtue.

Post by progressive_dad » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 4:30 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #12

beat wrote: post #6

Multiplying 3842 by 543 is very hard for humans. They're slow and inaccurate. Computers do it perfectly at incredible speeds. Inventing multiplication is something no computer (as we currently understand them) would ever be able to do. For another analogy, moving ten tons of rock a thousand feet is something humans can do, and have done for millennia. It's very slow and difficult. A bulldozer can do the same thing in…

Doug Lenat's Automated Mathematician (AM) apparently did "discover" multiplication by itself: http://web.onetel.net.uk/~hibou/ai-course/lenat.txt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Mathematician Of course, you could argue that multiplication was implicitly there in the rules and facts it was programmed with.

Post by uremog » Tue, Apr 26, 2016, 4:32 PM UTC

tlb wrote: post #21

rtkwe wrote: post #18

> But the argument goes both ways here as well: take an arbitrary human (such as yourself, if you happen to be human) and try placing this human in the cockpit of a landing jet plane, in a semiconductor factory, in the oval office of the White House, in the kitchen of a gourmet restaurant, on a horseback in Siberia, or equipped with only a spear in the middle of the Amazonas jungle. There are humans that have been pr…

That's partly because nobody has tried very hard to write one piece of software that's good at landing planes and being the president. Why not just write two pieces of software? What business model would a combined piece of software enable? Specialization of software is mostly a virtue.