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

161–170 of 172 posts

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#161

Post by unityByFreedom »

zodiac wrote: post #153
unityByFreedom wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article. The title isn't a substitute for reading. It's short because your attention span is short.

You didn't answer my question. There's an advantage for using the long title "Alphago is not strong AI": less people will be angry at a perceived clickbait title. What's the advantage for using the short title "Alphago is not AI"?

You're asking me why the author chose this title? I am not the author.

I could guess that he didn't use a qualifier because there are many different ones and none universally accepted. Or, maybe he wanted to reach a non-tech audience who wouldn't know the difference between strong AI and AI.

There are plenty of good reasons, and reading the article clarifies the author's meaning.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#162

Post by unityByFreedom »

psyc wrote: post #152
unityByFreedom wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have always found the idea that there's a hard line between strong and not-strong AI extremely naive You probably haven't studied much or any AI. In my opinion, those who haven't researched a subject don't understand the details and are likely to make more inaccurate predictions than experts.

What a randomly self-serving assumption to make.

It's not self-serving to say PhDs are better than me at predicting the future of their field.

It would be self-serving if I lied in an interview and said I was qualified for a job making robots if I'd never had any experience doing so.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#163

Post by unityByFreedom »

000000000000000 wrote: post #143
unityByFreedom wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, clickbait is "10 ways to find your spouse" This is just a short title, and ITT people didn't read the first paragraph.

If you read the first paragraph, it mentions first AI then AGI, and does not deny that the latter is a subset of the former. In the second paragraph it even mentions that today’s AI is not AGI. So it uses a strong claim — i.e. AlphaGo is not AI — then subsequently changes it to a smaller claim — AlphaGo is not AGI. Reading the entire article does not change the fact that this can be seen as a technique to attract rea…

Poppycock. Anyone who understands software knows AlphaGo used AI tech and that the title is referring to general AI. Anyone who doesn't will have their understanding clarified in the first paragraph.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#164

Post by eli_gottlieb »

enord wrote: post #129
philipkglass wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definition has the (unintentional?) effect of defining-away human intelligence. By the time a machine can demonstrate "enough" achievement in different domains to be called intelligent, the same high bar would disqualify any actual human being. If "a machine has to master backgammon, chess and poker, not just be a world champion at one of them" is a prerequisite for intelligence, then I don't think that any one…

In a sense, defining away human intelligence is the whole point. We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied by humans. From the perpective of AI-research any progress will chip away bits from the intelligence black-box and still the resulting AI will be out of reach of "true" intelligence. Since we have little knowledge of the internal structure of "intelligence" as…

>We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied by humans.

I believe cognitive scientists have a considerably better idea than that.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#165

Post by eli_gottlieb »

paradite wrote: post #141

Regarding the definition of AI, I find lecture notes for intro to AI courses in various university [1] very useful: > Views of AI fall into four categories: > Thinking humanly - Cognitive Modeling > Thinking rationally - “Laws of Thought” > Acting humanly - Turing Test > Acting rationally - Rational Agent > The textbook advocates "acting rationally" Indeed most of the things we see today in AI community is solving th…

I would say that if your paradigm for studying thought cannot explain away at least two of the other three, you've got it wrong. A good theory in cognitive modeling ought to have applications to all the rest. A good theory of acting rationally ought to have applications to acting humanly or thinking rationally, and ideally to thinking humanly as well.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#166

Post by enord »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #164
enord wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a sense, defining away human intelligence is the whole point. We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied by humans. From the perpective of AI-research any progress will chip away bits from the intelligence black-box and still the resulting AI will be out of reach of "true" intelligence. Since we have little knowledge of the internal structure of "intelligence" as…

>We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied by humans. I believe cognitive scientists have a considerably better idea than that.

Yes they each have a better idea, but the intersection of their proposals is pretty much just that. Why do you think they still make a big fuss over the Turing Test?

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#167

Post by mannykannot »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #156
mannykannot wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. Helen Keller had smell, taste, touch, and proprioception all functioning. In what way did she have no senses b…

I was just looking for an analogy suggesting low bandwidth and experientially lean.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#168

Post by eli_gottlieb »

enord wrote: post #166
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied by humans. I believe cognitive scientists have a considerably better idea than that.

Yes they each have a better idea, but the intersection of their proposals is pretty much just that. Why do you think they still make a big fuss over the Turing Test?

I have never heard cognitive scientists make a big fuss over the Turing Test. Who've you been reading/watching?

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#169

Post by eli_gottlieb »

mannykannot wrote: post #167
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Helen Keller had smell, taste, touch, and proprioception all functioning. In what way did she have no senses b…

I was just looking for an analogy suggesting low bandwidth and experientially lean.

I mean, yes, it's low bandwidth, but it's actually high dimensionality, which has information-theoretic advantages.

Re: AlphaGo Is Not AI

#170

Post by enord »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #168
enord wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they each have a better idea, but the intersection of their proposals is pretty much just that. Why do you think they still make a big fuss over the Turing Test?

I have never heard cognitive scientists make a big fuss over the Turing Test. Who've you been reading/watching?

Good old Doug makes a little fuss here: https://books.google.no/books?id=qa85DgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT428&ots=...

When I said "make a big fuss" i didn't mean "herald it as the gold standard", but they do go on about it even though they might disagree about what it utlimately signifies.

Post reply on HN