Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "understanding" [...] is the metric used in ALL other hard scientific fields [...] Meaning that once you understand it, you can build it or model it by hand in a computer program. > If you can understand it then you can code it up in the same amount of lines of code. You have made up the "by hand"/"same amount of lines of code" requirement. The real world does not have it. If a scientist builds a neural network tha…
>I disagree. I see that we do exactly that with neural nets. The distinctions you are trying to come up with sound semantic and arbitrary. You disagree, and therefore you are wrong. Similar to how if I say the sky is blue and you disagree. The distinction sounds semantic and arbitrary but it is not. Think harder, the failure here is not a semantic difference but a failure in you to process the right abstraction. Your…
Hehe and then you wonder why the argument is not going anywhere. If you would be talking about hard science which is proven by experiments or strong mathematical models, then yes, opinion would be irrelevant. But you are not talking about that at all, you are talking about your own subjective thoughts about the subject. And I just dont think they describe the current nor future state of AI properly.