11–16 of 16 posts
Such a qualitative comparison may offend some HN, but it's a useful means to communicate the idea of heavy "brainpower" that has constraints.
Sure, if you define "intelligence" as "solving problems in a variety of environments to accomplish your own goals and self-replicate", then no, modern AI is not intelligent. You have just redefined intelligence so that only living beings can be intelligent.
A computer virus that evolves and spreads and is too elusive for humans to eliminate would fit that scenario. I think the point is that as long as humans defines what the AI should do it will never be intelligent, it will only become intelligent when we lose control of it. I think that was his point, not sure I agree with it but at least it isn't trivially wrong.
Humans have instructions too, which are rooted in evolution and biology. It's not at all clear to me how an AI that follows an instruction must, per definition, be considered unintelligent. That would imply Humans are unintelligent.
> The AI community usually turns to the brain to get inspiration for algorithms and new directions of research. ??? This isn’t true. The author doesn’t seem to have an understanding of modern AI.
Where does the inspiration for ANN/CNN/RNN come from?
> The AI community usually turns to the brain to get inspiration for algorithms and new directions of research. ??? This isn’t true. The author doesn’t seem to have an understanding of modern AI.
Where does the inspiration for ANN/CNN/RNN come from?
GOFAI might not pull inspiration from the brain, but connectionist style AI, which represents the vast majority of ai being produced and operated, almost exclusively uses brains for inspiration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where does the inspiration for ANN/CNN/RNN come from?
Neural networks originated from coarse-grained analogies to a 1940s understanding of neurons. That’s about where the neuroscience connection ended. People have tried to make connections since then, but it’s almost always post-hoc.
Sure, if you define "intelligence" as "solving problems in a variety of environments to accomplish your own goals and self-replicate", then no, modern AI is not intelligent. You have just redefined intelligence so that only living beings can be intelligent.
A computer virus that evolves and spreads and is too elusive for humans to eliminate would fit that scenario. I think the point is that as long as humans defines what the AI should do it will never be intelligent, it will only become intelligent when we lose control of it. I think that was his point, not sure I agree with it but at least it isn't trivially wrong.