News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:AlphaGo Is Not AI by enord on Monday March 20, 2017 @06:09AM (#13912915)
In a sense, defining away human intelligence is the whole point. We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied by humans. From the perpective of AI-research any progress will chip away bits from the intelligence black-box and still the resulting AI will be out of reach of "true" intelligence. Since we have little knowledge of the internal structure of "intelligence" as a phenomenon, we can't tell how much is left to discover about it.

From the other end, the merits of production AI will be measured against isolated properties pulled out of the intellgence black-box, and since intelligence remains undefined (in a strict ontological sense), debate ensues.

Re:AlphaGo Is Not AI by eli_gottlieb on Monday March 20, 2017 @03:05PM (#13916771)
>We have no servicable definition of intelligence other than a behaviourist black box embodied by humans.

I believe cognitive scientists have a considerably better idea than that.

Re:AlphaGo Is Not AI by enord on Monday March 20, 2017 @03:42PM (#13917052)
Yes they each have a better idea, but the intersection of their proposals is pretty much just that. Why do you think they still make a big fuss over the Turing Test?
Re:AlphaGo Is Not AI by eli_gottlieb on Monday March 20, 2017 @09:55PM (#13919206)
I have never heard cognitive scientists make a big fuss over the Turing Test. Who've you been reading/watching?
Re:AlphaGo Is Not AI by enord on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @03:59AM (#13920514)
Good old Doug makes a little fuss here: https://books.google.no/books?id=qa85DgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT428&ots=...

When I said "make a big fuss" i didn't mean "herald it as the gold standard", but they do go on about it even though they might disagree about what it utlimately signifies.