>My original comment was about how people shift the goal posts about what AI is. My opinion is that in the same way you'd struggle to call a human intelligent if literally all they could do was play genius level Go, most people would not call a computer program intelligent if all it could do was play Go.
I totally agree with you on that one.
>Hmm, I think we're misunderstanding each other. Is your view that RL and CNN have been or can be applied to create a machine you'd call intelligent right now?
Not really. I was making a point to this:
>I don't think anyone would call an algorithm that in theory can apply to lots of domains intelligent. You need a concrete implementation to demonstrate this.
I was saying that even the human mind is one complex algorithm and we consider that intelligence. Something being understandable and us being able to apply to multiple domains can be intelligence as we see it today. It's just that we don't know what the complex algorithm is.
>If the machine could play many other games and adapt to games it hasn't seen before that's more convincing, but you would expect an intelligent machine to be able to adapt to more varied tasks as well (e.g. having conversations, writing stories, doing maths, recognising objects). Right now, we have AIs that are genius level at one task that cannot even attempt other tasks e.g. genius level at Chess or even a whole category of games but couldn't have a basic conversation.
This is exactly what I'm getting at. If we do find out the algorithm that effective replicates human intelligence, isn't that intelligence according to the definition of intelligence? If we find out the complex human algorithm, then we'd be able to do all the things that you just described
I think where our misunderstanding arises is that I'm saying you're disconnecting the working of human brain and algorithms. I'm saying human brain is one big algorithm and your statement :
>I don't think anyone would call an algorithm that in theory can apply to lots of domains intelligent
Wouldn't hold true in the case where we find out the algorithm for emulating the brain effectively. This disconnect in separating human intelligence from being anything other than an algorithm will make us see human brain as an un-understandable mystery box, which I think it is not.
I totally agree with you on that one.
>Hmm, I think we're misunderstanding each other. Is your view that RL and CNN have been or can be applied to create a machine you'd call intelligent right now?
Not really. I was making a point to this:
>I don't think anyone would call an algorithm that in theory can apply to lots of domains intelligent. You need a concrete implementation to demonstrate this.
I was saying that even the human mind is one complex algorithm and we consider that intelligence. Something being understandable and us being able to apply to multiple domains can be intelligence as we see it today. It's just that we don't know what the complex algorithm is.
>If the machine could play many other games and adapt to games it hasn't seen before that's more convincing, but you would expect an intelligent machine to be able to adapt to more varied tasks as well (e.g. having conversations, writing stories, doing maths, recognising objects). Right now, we have AIs that are genius level at one task that cannot even attempt other tasks e.g. genius level at Chess or even a whole category of games but couldn't have a basic conversation.
This is exactly what I'm getting at. If we do find out the algorithm that effective replicates human intelligence, isn't that intelligence according to the definition of intelligence? If we find out the complex human algorithm, then we'd be able to do all the things that you just described
I think where our misunderstanding arises is that I'm saying you're disconnecting the working of human brain and algorithms. I'm saying human brain is one big algorithm and your statement :
>I don't think anyone would call an algorithm that in theory can apply to lots of domains intelligent
Wouldn't hold true in the case where we find out the algorithm for emulating the brain effectively. This disconnect in separating human intelligence from being anything other than an algorithm will make us see human brain as an un-understandable mystery box, which I think it is not.