Re:Human-Level AI Is Harder Than It Seemed in 1955 – John Mc...
by tzs on Wednesday January 28, 2015 @10:14PM
(#8964116)
> Edit: this was meant somewhat ironically to get the point across that we can't be expected to succeed with AI unless we know how HI actually works
That's only true if the way HI works is the only reasonable way at achieve AI.
Biological solutions can be a good inspiration for some problems, but not always. See the film Gizmo, which is the subject of another story currently on the first couple of pages of HN, for some footage of what happened when people tried to base aviation too closely on what birds do.
I can't see any reason that it is not plausible that someday, after we do have AI, the sentence "we can't be expected to succeed with AI unless we know how HI actually works" will be regarded similarly to the way the sentence "we can't be expected to build vehicles that travel 60 mph [1] unless we know how cheetahs actually work" would be regarded now.
That's only true if the way HI works is the only reasonable way at achieve AI.
Biological solutions can be a good inspiration for some problems, but not always. See the film Gizmo, which is the subject of another story currently on the first couple of pages of HN, for some footage of what happened when people tried to base aviation too closely on what birds do.
I can't see any reason that it is not plausible that someday, after we do have AI, the sentence "we can't be expected to succeed with AI unless we know how HI actually works" will be regarded similarly to the way the sentence "we can't be expected to build vehicles that travel 60 mph [1] unless we know how cheetahs actually work" would be regarded now.
[1] 97 km/hr