Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AlphaGo Is Not AI

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 172 posts

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#31

Post by platz »

gonehome wrote: post #19
platz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When some people say "AI" what they really mean is "Strong AI"

I think people think of it more along the lines of an artificial consciousness. Which since consciousness is likely an emerging property of our own biological neural net and training data/weights, would likely have similar issues that humans have when exposed to bad data while growing up.

> our own biological neural net and training data/weights

Well that shoots down my "minds are made of mechanical internal drives/pistons/levers" theory.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#32

Post by adzm »

Relevant Hofstadter quote:

> Sometimes it seems as though each new step towards AI, rather than producing something which everyone agrees is real intelligence, merely reveals what real intelligence is not.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#33

Post by mannykannot »

itchyjunk wrote: post #26

If a chimp could play the game of go at the same level as humans, would we say the chimp had intelligence? When you base your definition of intelligence on sample size of 1 (humans), but can't even define within that context, you get these kinds of problems. Is platypus a mammal or not? Does the classification change the function? Are all humans intelligent or posses natural intelligence? Is there a degree of intelli…

There are problems where humans need to use intelligence, but which are amenable to brute-force computing - chess is an example - and that does not, in my view, make brute-force computing class as intelligence. It does not accord with what the term AI originally meant, and the first moving of the goal post was to apply it to these cases.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#34

Post by kgwgk »

kowdermeister wrote: post #10
platz wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When some people say "AI" what they really mean is "Strong AI"

I'm some people and what I mean by AI is artificial intelligence. If needed I can be more precise with Weak / Strong / AGI or ASI.

You are some other people, then.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#35

Post by bsaul »

I don't understand the critics this article receive here. It makes a very good counterpoint to all the hype the AI field is living at the moment, letting people from the general audience believe that algorithms will replace humans quite soon.

You may think it doesn't matter, but we've candidates to the presidential elections here in france building economical programs assuming "robots will do everything soon, so let's provide everybody with a universal revenue" as a likely immediate future.

It is extremely healthy to let people understand all we've been able to build so far are number crunching machines, which absolutely don't give any kind of meaning to the numbers they see passing by. Meaning as : i see what this number represents, and the consequences it has in real people's context.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#36

Post by rocqua »

> Culture is the essential catalyst of intelligence

I liked the article on many fronts and thought it tried to justify most of its claims. However, the quoted claim goes unsupported.

Does anyone know of justifications for the quoted claim?

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#37

Post by pron »

habitue wrote: post #25
pron wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a "weak AI"? Does any algorithm that is able to adapt its behavior by learning qualify as "weak AI"? If so, why call it AI at all?

Yeah, exactly. We call it AI because we need a name for this kind of adaptive algorithm, even if it isn't anything close to strong AI

There are JIT compilers, and even sorting algorithms that are adaptive. Are they AI too? What's wrong with the name "statistical learning" (as that's the flavor du jour of so called AI anyway)?

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#38

Post by visarga »

bsaul wrote: post #35

I don't understand the critics this article receive here. It makes a very good counterpoint to all the hype the AI field is living at the moment, letting people from the general audience believe that algorithms will replace humans quite soon. You may think it doesn't matter, but we've candidates to the presidential elections here in france building economical programs assuming "robots will do everything soon, so let'…

> all we've been able to build so far are number crunching machines, which absolutely don't give any kind of meaning to the numbers they see passing by

All humans are just protein factories, which don't have any meaning other than electrical pulses and chemical reactions.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#39

Post by pron »

joepanda wrote: post #27
pron wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments A tardigrade achieves its goals in a wide range of environments; I don't think anyone would call it intelligent. I've known quite a few 15-year-old juvenile delinquents that I'm certain were able to achieve their goals in a much wider range of environments than Albert Einstein; were they all much more intelligent than Einstein…

I would absolutely classify a tardigrade as an intelligent system. Systems of parts interacting in an intelligent way applies to more than just networks of nerve cells.

You've made a circular definition. And I wasn't claiming that only nerve cells can form intelligence, but I think that if we expand the definition beyond what people normally call intelligent, then we should be more precise than the vague "ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments" or else every complex adaptive system would be called intelligent, in which case we can drop that name because we already have one: complex adaptive systems (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system)

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#40

Post by chii »

CJefferson wrote: post #28
59nadir wrote: post #2

The piece really makes the only point worth making in the beginning: > What is AI and what is not AI is, to some extent, a matter of definition. It is by the general and widely used definition that AlphaGo is actually an AI. It just happens to solve one very specific problem very well, making it a weak AI. > Again, the rapid advances of deep learning and the recent success of this kind of AI at games like Go are very…

Speaking as an AI researcher, almost nothing is "AI" research. In practice i feel most current AI research falls into two categories: * Fuzzy problems -- image, sound and free text recognition. Where there is no real "true answer". * Problems too hard to solve in a reasonable time without heuristics -- SAT, scheduling, etc. In practice NP-hard problems and further up the complexity heirachy -- AlphaGo goes here. Once…

is there any research into making a "generic" AI that can solve any problem without the researcher first having to know what that problem is? i.e., human style learning.
Post reply on HN