Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Well that's the crux of the problem - the corollary to your question is "can you provide a firm definition of intelligence?" Nobody can yet, so it's all speculation and subjective opinion.

The reason that I personally consider all these things parlor tricks (including, hypothetically, complete mastery of Go) is that I see no path from these particular types of systems to general intelligence. A human can take in arbitrary sensory data and make all sorts of conclusions and associations with it. Does this particular system have the capability to get to a point where it can see an apple falling and posit a theory of gravity? Will it ever be able to read subtle cues in facial/oral/bodily expression and combine them with all sorts of other data, instantaneously, to achieve compelling real-time social interaction? Will this system ever invent the game of Go, or anything else, because it felt like it? No, it has absolutely no framework to do any of those things, or countless other things humans can do. It's a machine built with a single purpose in mind, and it can only serve that purpose. It's a glorified function call. I don't think this type of machine will just wake up one day after digging deeper and deeper into these "hard" tasks. We need breadth, not depth.



You may find this paragraph on wikipedia interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language#Limitations...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: