A.I. Developer Challenges Pro-Human Bias 234
destinyland writes "After 13 years, the creator of the Noble Ape cognitive simulation says he's learned two things about artificial intelligence. 'Survival is a far better metric of intelligence than replicating human intelligence,' and "There are a number of examples of vastly more intelligent systems (in terms of survival) than human intelligence." Both Apple and Intel have used his simulation as a processor metric, but now Tom Barbalet argues its insights could be broadly applied to real life. His examples of durable non-human systems? The legal system, the health care system, and even the internet, where individual humans are simply the 'passive maintaining agents,' and the systems can't be conquered without a human onslaught that's several magnitudes larger."
So TFA doesn't actually say most of that (Score:3, Informative)
He says you CAN consider the Internet, legal system, medical system, and others in terms of this notion, but doesn't get terrifically specific about it. He does, however, specifically state that road systems and the legal system are at least an order of magnitude more resilient than a human-level intelligence, which is nice, if you believe his examples are well-chosen. I'd be hard pressed to claim that they are.
In other words, he sets up an interesting research topic and then between his own poor choice of phrasing, the multiple Singularity references which surround the article, and the
Re:bitches? (Score:1, Informative)
You know... if wishing to post as AC, it helps if you check that little tickbox...
Just saying... =)
Re:Bad metric (Score:5, Informative)
Huh? Please tell me that was a fucking joke.
Lets just go with cyanobacteria. Not harmful, but the first photosynthisizing critters on earth. They created stromatolites a couple of billion years ago, and they are still doing it today, but on a much reduced scale. As far as they can tell the stromatolites in Sharks Bay Australia today are the same as the ones 2.8 billion years ago. The roaches we have today aren't the same species of roaches they had 354-295 million years ago. Notice that order of magnitude difference?
Re:He's too close. (Score:2, Informative)
Err, what exactly is "critical thinking skills"? that's one term I've never quite understood. And while acquiring and retaining information are easy to qualify, how do you measure its use?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking [wikipedia.org]
The articles a little difficult to read at first. So here goes, Critical Thinking is similar to cynicism in that you don't believe everything your told. Rather that you question everything, but accept what is shown by the evidence. In turn it is the ability to ask the correct questions to show the truth or false hood of a given statement.
Measuring it is not easy. Though it can be evaluated qualitatively. One measure could be the time it takes to accept a truth VS. the time it take to reject a falsehood.