Yeah I get that. I studied and have worked in machine learning. Neural networks are more general than previous approaches but they still need to be customized by humans for different applications. And none of these programs are going off and learning how to play other games on their own. They need to be led.
> Scientists tested Deep Q’s problem-solving abilities on the Atari 2600 gaming platform. Deep-Q learned not only the rules for a variety of games (49 games in total) in a range of different environments, but the behaviors required to maximize scores. It did so with minimal prior knowledge, receiving only visual images (in pixel form) and the game score as inputs.
Sure, the problem space is still fairly limited, but the AI did learn new games without much guidance at all.
We should rejoice in that fact. We are woefully unprepared for true learning programs as a species. Let us hope that between now and the time we do manage to create one that we mature to the point where we don't create these thinking entities for malicious purposes.
> Let us hope that between now and the time we do manage to create one that we mature to the point where we don't create these thinking entities for malicious purposes
That's a long way off and we'll face a lot of other problems before then.
For instance, fear mongering of a looming AI. We're better off focusing on teaching kids computer science and allowing them to see for themselves how theoretical and unscary true AI remains.
