Why lifeless AI is not intelligent

> 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?

hmry|4 years ago

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.

Jensson|4 years ago

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.

pilooch|4 years ago

My take on intelligence over the past 20y has been it is high quality / efficient search of immense state spaces.

"Solving intelligence" as a famous corporation motto, might just be improving state-space search.

Humans are incredible at state space search, it's obvious as soon as you consider the potential data pointsnof any problem we face every day, from washing dishes to designing algorithms.

Retric|4 years ago

You can abstract basically anything to state space search + optimization. It’s essentially too wide a classification to be that useful.

sgt101|4 years ago

Junk - not worth reading

smitty1e|4 years ago

I am stuck by a comparison between AI's limitations as captured in the article and the theoligical concept of angels.

Such a qualitative comparison may offend some HN, but it's a useful means to communicate the idea of heavy "brainpower" that has constraints.

xenocyon|4 years ago

Is this simply an argument in favor of genetic algorithms or is there more to it than that?

16 comments