41–50 of 134 posts
The problem is the term never had a technical definition. It was always just a hand waving marketing phrase for “clever algorithms”.
Reminds me when X-rays first were discovered, everyone claimed their product contained them, including X-ray headache tablets, golf balls, stove polish, razor blades. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/rg.242035157 for some fun pictures. I won't be surprised when AI toothbrushes come out.
:( https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/10/25/20932250/...
if brush_time 5.minutes
return "Brush less"
endThe technical people involved have since moved on to using AGI as the term for "actual AI" for years now.
Reminds me when X-rays first were discovered, everyone claimed their product contained them, including X-ray headache tablets, golf balls, stove polish, razor blades. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/rg.242035157 for some fun pictures. I won't be surprised when AI toothbrushes come out.
The rebuttal to this view is "provide a principled definition of intelligence". Doesn't seem like the article does this. A hint appears partway through: "computers will not be able to match humans in their ability to reason abstractly about real-world situations". Does human intelligence distinguish itself by its "abstractness" and by its application to "the real world"? There's also "the systems do not form the kind…
We won't consider machines intelligent until they have and demonstrate the capacity to consider us not-intelligent.
It's an open question of how long we will consider anything after that point.
Off topic: This website needs me to 'accept & close' cookies before i read the article. I had people respond to me in a gdpr thread saying that they never accept cookies example : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26360345 What do such ppl do here? just not read the article?
Of course, sometimes you direly need some info and can't skip it, but these situations are extremely rare.
While I mostly agree with Michael Jordan, I think that he overstates his argument a small bit. I feel comfortable applying the "AI" label to projects if they: 1) achieve human level of performance or better. 2) They use any or all of standard techniques like deep learning, NLP, knowledge representation, reinforcement learning, etc. I am just about to hit my 40 year anniversary for getting paid to be doing "AI" relate…
But why that? There isn't a principled reason for singling those out. It's just a matter of convention that we call those AI.
Pretend you never heard of AI before and you came across these algorithms. No amount of analysis or poking around would lead you to think "oh, man, this is artificial intelligence!". No, you'd see a bunch of statistical techniques that do X, Y, and Z, none of which would jump out at you as "wow, this is AI". All that computers give us is the ability to run tedious computations over larger data sets that would be impractical for human beings to perform.
"AI" is what we read into these things. There really is no such thing as such.
Reminds me when X-rays first were discovered, everyone claimed their product contained them, including X-ray headache tablets, golf balls, stove polish, razor blades. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/rg.242035157 for some fun pictures. I won't be surprised when AI toothbrushes come out.