Re:How close are we to solving vision?
by unlikelymordant on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @08:45AM
(#12957883)
> Without interaction there can be no intelligence. And there is no interaction without a body of some shape.
I disagree fully. Can a person born quadriplegic not be considered intelligent simply because they can't interact with things? They can interact by communicating, same as a computer can.
Re:How close are we to solving vision?
by erikpukinskis on Tuesday November 15, 2016 @01:03PM
(#12960437)
A quadriplegic has a body, they can move their head, mouth, eyes, etc, and those things can influence the world. That constitutes a perception action loop which is a basic requirement for intelligence.
An AI without any actuators is more like a fully paralyzed person.
A baby which was born totally paralyzed would in fact be profoundly retarded and they would be unable to communicate or form anything resembling intelligence. See http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-seriously-creepy-two-kitten-exper...
An AI with vocal cords and a microphone in the real world has a body.
It's impossible to really see something unless you have the opportunity to interact with it (or things like it). It's impossible to understand something unless you have the opportunity to interact with it (or things like it). Without interaction there can be no intelligence. The best you can do is have an intelligent being (the human researcher) train a computer to mimic intelligent action in a constrained environment. But there is no path from there to general intelligence without interaction.
And there is no interaction without a body of some shape. The body can be virtual, and needn't look like a human body, but there needs to be a set of actuators which cause realtime changes in the input space.