News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Artificial intelligence: Our final invention?. Parent comment

Re:Artificial intelligence: Our final invention? by wlievens on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @04:54PM (#6931128)
> if we only care about the outcome and the utility of the AGI, and don't expect it to be fully "human like"

I'm not even sure whether that's a meaningful distinction. Searle's Chinese Room et cetera.

I'm with you in the wing analogy, I fully agree. I just don't think Watson or Deep Blue is a significant approach even in that direction.

Human-like or not, we have certain expectations from our hypothetical AGI in terms of the kind of new problems it can solve without too much help. I guess what it mean is: I think it needs to be able to solve a problem it wasn't designed upfront to solve. No serious system I've ever seen attempts to do that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Artificial intelligence: Our final invention? by mietek on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @09:11PM (#6932485)
The Chinese Room argument is unconvincing.

The man in the room may not understand Chinese, but he is using a dictionary, which to a casual observer appears suspiciously thick. Just how thick would the dictionary need to be in order to provide a sensible response for all possible lines of enquiry?

Searle's argument reduces a room which understands Chinese to a dictionary which understands Chinese. A strange loop indeed.

With regard to serious systems attempting to solve AGI — are you aware of Jeff Hawkins' work on hierarchical temporal memory?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Artificial intelligence: Our final invention? by wlievens on Thursday December 19, 2013 @02:20AM (#6933344)
I'm not saying I necessarily support Searle's position. I do think it's an interesting thought experiment. To be honest, if it quacks and walks, I'm not one who'll be arguing that it isn't sapient.

I haven't followed any recent research, sorry.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Artificial intelligence: Our final invention? by mindcrime on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @05:11PM (#6931221)
I guess what it mean is: I think it needs to be able to solve a problem it wasn't designed upfront to solve. No serious system I've ever seen attempts to do that.

Fair enough. :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]