are "we" the result of hardcoded DNA or the result of learning? Our objective of survival is kind of hardcoded objective we optimize our life on. Why do we care about if we can build another "intelligence" similar to ours? Why not just build something good at jobs we don't want to do, and leave "culture" to us. I strongly believe a higher being will laugh to see we call ourself intelligent the same way we see artificial intelligence.
AlphaGo Is Not AI
111–120 of 172 posts
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#112The headline for this piece is clickbait. AlphaGo is AI, it's just not strong AI. No AI is strong AI for the moment, but that doesn't mean that the AI we have is uninteresting or a dead end, as the author seems to think. The author and his editors deliberately conflate the two terms in the headline, and clarify after about a paragraph. Sure, AlphaGo is not strong AI. And Abraham Lincoln is dead. And there are lots of…
It's not clickbait. You're being pedantic. It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI and was merely addressing the hype of some non-AI researchers. It's a response to people who think because of AlphaGo that we are on the cusp of achieving true / strong / general AI. > An AI that solves a lot of problems better than humans, and transfers that learning across many problems with relative ease, is getting c…
I have always found the idea that there's a hard line between strong and not-strong AI extremely naive. The whole thing is a long gradient of progress. Strong AI is going to creep up on most programmers like the proverbial boiling frog, and internet forums will be full of people denying its existence throughout that process.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#113The headline for this piece is clickbait. AlphaGo is AI, it's just not strong AI. No AI is strong AI for the moment, but that doesn't mean that the AI we have is uninteresting or a dead end, as the author seems to think. The author and his editors deliberately conflate the two terms in the headline, and clarify after about a paragraph. Sure, AlphaGo is not strong AI. And Abraham Lincoln is dead. And there are lots of…
I think we can agree to disagree on the definition of intelligence.
Intelligence implies a lot more than pattern recognition. Current state is just a better way to treat large quantity of data. The smart is to feed the computer the right way with good data, iterate through different ways the computer can guess a model from the data and finally interpret the final results. Computers doesn't know how to do that. Yet.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#114The headline for this piece is clickbait. AlphaGo is AI, it's just not strong AI. No AI is strong AI for the moment, but that doesn't mean that the AI we have is uninteresting or a dead end, as the author seems to think. The author and his editors deliberately conflate the two terms in the headline, and clarify after about a paragraph. Sure, AlphaGo is not strong AI. And Abraham Lincoln is dead. And there are lots of…
It's not clickbait. You're being pedantic. It's clear the author meant true / general / strong AI and was merely addressing the hype of some non-AI researchers. It's a response to people who think because of AlphaGo that we are on the cusp of achieving true / strong / general AI. > An AI that solves a lot of problems better than humans, and transfers that learning across many problems with relative ease, is getting c…
Then why not title the article "Alphago is not strong AI"?
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#115The headline for this piece is clickbait. AlphaGo is AI, it's just not strong AI. No AI is strong AI for the moment, but that doesn't mean that the AI we have is uninteresting or a dead end, as the author seems to think. The author and his editors deliberately conflate the two terms in the headline, and clarify after about a paragraph. Sure, AlphaGo is not strong AI. And Abraham Lincoln is dead. And there are lots of…
I think we can agree to disagree on the definition of intelligence. Intelligence implies a lot more than pattern recognition. Current state is just a better way to treat large quantity of data. The smart is to feed the computer the right way with good data, iterate through different ways the computer can guess a model from the data and finally interpret the final results. Computers doesn't know how to do that. Yet.
> The smart is to feed the computer the right way with good data, iterate through different ways the computer can guess a model from the data and finally interpret the final results.
That's exactly how AlphaGo was trained.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#116AlphaGo is an AI, author of this article thinks AI to understand itself and code itself and have sex then reproduce, WTF? AI is Technology and not Biology. AI and Human Brain are not the same. This is like saying AI to take birth by itself without human programming it.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#117The headline for this piece is clickbait. AlphaGo is AI, it's just not strong AI. No AI is strong AI for the moment, but that doesn't mean that the AI we have is uninteresting or a dead end, as the author seems to think. The author and his editors deliberately conflate the two terms in the headline, and clarify after about a paragraph. Sure, AlphaGo is not strong AI. And Abraham Lincoln is dead. And there are lots of…
The first Chomskyan argument looks plausible (though still speculative) to me, but I share your skepticism of the ‘embodiment problem’ claim that a body and rich set of senses are necessary prerequisites. Anyone seduced by that argument should consider the life story of Helen Keller, who did have two-way interaction with the world, but only through the biological equivalent of a teletype.
That and virtual environments are continuing to grow in richness.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#118The headline for this piece is clickbait. AlphaGo is AI, it's just not strong AI. No AI is strong AI for the moment, but that doesn't mean that the AI we have is uninteresting or a dead end, as the author seems to think. The author and his editors deliberately conflate the two terms in the headline, and clarify after about a paragraph. Sure, AlphaGo is not strong AI. And Abraham Lincoln is dead. And there are lots of…
> things everyone knows
Everyone in the field. There are many more people outside of the field though.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the quote does a great job at explaining why a lot of people have been critical of labeling the recent breakthroughs in Machine learning as real intelligence. Most people define intelligence in comparison to humans. Things like being the best GO player in the world are so specialized that they don't seem very human at all. Most people will not be impressed by a machine that can master backgammon, chess and po…
I used to think that the rarity of human mastery of games, and games' abstraction from the physical world, were what prevented most humans from perceiving machine intelligence as intelligence. Then the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge for self-driving vehicles showed that machines could perform a task that most adult Americans can perform, that no non-human animals have ever been taught to perform, and that requires signif…
> a task that most adult Americans can perform, that no non-human animals have ever been taught to perform
Woah wait what? Non-human animals successfully navigate >7 miles of mountain terrain all the time.
Machine intelligence doesn't seem like "real" intelligence because it just doesn't seem as generalizable. Taking the engines and hydraulics used to great effect in water pumps and applying them to construction cranes required engineering work, sure, but no new physics. But you can't just take the convolutional neural nets that are breaking new ground in computer vision and apply them to natural language processing, you need new computer science research to develop long short-term memory networks.
The cool thing about AlphaGo, from my understanding, was that it was able to train the deep learning-based heuristics for board evaluation by playing a ton of games against itself. This is especially awesome because those heuristics are (were?) our main edge over machines [1]. But in CV and NLP, playing against yourself isn't really a thing, so again, this work doesn't automatically generalize the way engines and hydraulics did.
Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the quote does a great job at explaining why a lot of people have been critical of labeling the recent breakthroughs in Machine learning as real intelligence. Most people define intelligence in comparison to humans. Things like being the best GO player in the world are so specialized that they don't seem very human at all. Most people will not be impressed by a machine that can master backgammon, chess and po…
I used to think that the rarity of human mastery of games, and games' abstraction from the physical world, were what prevented most humans from perceiving machine intelligence as intelligence. Then the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge for self-driving vehicles showed that machines could perform a task that most adult Americans can perform, that no non-human animals have ever been taught to perform, and that requires signif…
[deleted]