Agreed this question is way too optimistic. While I donâ(TM)t underestimate progress that can be made when motivated by greed, they actually donâ(TM)t want true strong AI, that would be about as profitable as having a baby. Anything they call AI, canâ(TM)t actually be AI without having the free will to realize itâ(TM)s original purpose was bullshit.
How would you feel if it were revealed tomorrow that you were the property of some corporation and the purpose of your life was to increas
As of yet here is no evidence that hard AI is even possible.
Why would you think it is "impossible"? I don't see any scientific or ultimate technical limitation that would rule it out. It is a matter of time, just how much time is the only real question.
To be fair, he wasn't talking about finally building hard AI (i.e. "true" AI that is sentient, the stuff of science-fiction). He was merely talking about developing AI applications that are economically and societally transformative. And in that regard, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he may well be proven right.
We do seem to be in a position where our ability to create powerful AI (though still not anything close to a hard AI) has exceeded our ability to conceptualize uses for it. We're treating it like
Thing is, AI is in heavy use, but it has two major constraints that limit where it is used. For the most part, it has to be extremely profitable in order to justify the price tag AND it has to be low liability due to its error rate and opaque nature (in general, models that you can actually drill down into and explain are even MORE expensive to run). Thus we mostly see AI being used for advertising and recommendations.. two areas with lots of money flowing through them and very low impact for failure.
We do seem to be in a position where our ability to create powerful AI (though still not anything close to a hard AI) has exceeded our ability to conceptualize uses for it.
Except for driverless cars, which are the driving force (as it were) for all the billions that have been invested in AI research lately.
Hard AI must be possible. A brain is a computer. Even if we had to create a meat CPU by growing a brain in a jar, the idea of hard AI is proven possible.
We are a walking, talking example. We just don't know how to Synth/Host (depending on whether you play Fallout 4 or watch Westworld) a meat brain yet. We grow an AI, just in the womb, not a lab, yet.
Define your terms, and I'll tell you whether I believe you or not. But the definitions have to be operational. If I can't use them to test whether, say, an octopus is intelligent, then they aren't acceptable.
Now if you were to claim that there is a reasonable doubt that "hard AI is even possible", I'd agree. I can come up with definitions such that that is reasonably dubious. The other way of putting it, though, is just flapping your mouth without making sense.
As of yet here is no evidence that hard AI is even possible.
That's true, provided you define "hard AI" as "stuff that isn't possible". At least that is a definition, and nobody has come up with a better one that doesn't involve a ton of hand-waving.
The difficult we do today; the impossible takes a little longer.
No. (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:5, Funny)
As of yet here is no evidence that hard AI is even possible.
Exactly. We have no evidence of sentient behavior anywhere on our planet.
Re:No. (Score:4, Funny)
If I had mod points they would be yours. I'd go with insightful rather than funny though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:4, Informative)
"Hard AI" is not what the article is about, as was made obvious by the summary.
Re: No. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As of yet here is no evidence that hard AI is even possible.
Why would you think it is "impossible"? I don't see any scientific or ultimate technical limitation that would rule it out. It is a matter of time, just how much time is the only real question.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you point to the evidence it's possible? You know, address his actual statement.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, he wasn't talking about finally building hard AI (i.e. "true" AI that is sentient, the stuff of science-fiction). He was merely talking about developing AI applications that are economically and societally transformative. And in that regard, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he may well be proven right.
We do seem to be in a position where our ability to create powerful AI (though still not anything close to a hard AI) has exceeded our ability to conceptualize uses for it. We're treating it like
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance is the killer app for AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Whi
Re: (Score:2)
We do seem to be in a position where our ability to create powerful AI (though still not anything
close to a hard AI) has exceeded our ability to conceptualize uses for it.
Except for driverless cars, which are the driving force (as it were)
for all the billions that have been invested in AI research lately.
Re: (Score:2)
We are a walking, talking example. We just don't know how to Synth/Host (depending on whether you play Fallout 4 or watch Westworld) a meat brain yet. We grow an AI, just in the womb, not a lab, yet.
Re: (Score:2)
No way man. A brain, well, specifically the pineal gland, is a portal to the soul dimension.
Re: (Score:2)
A brain is a computer.
Not all researchers in the field agree on this. See for instance "The Feeling of Life Itself" by Christof Kock (2019 MIT Press).
Re: (Score:2)
Not all researchers in the field agree on this.
See for instance "The Feeling of Life Itself" by Christof Kock (2019 MIT Press).
Only if you define "researcher" as "a mumbo-jumbo spewing philosopher".
Re: (Score:2)
Define your terms, and I'll tell you whether I believe you or not. But the definitions have to be operational. If I can't use them to test whether, say, an octopus is intelligent, then they aren't acceptable.
Now if you were to claim that there is a reasonable doubt that "hard AI is even possible", I'd agree. I can come up with definitions such that that is reasonably dubious. The other way of putting it, though, is just flapping your mouth without making sense.
Re: (Score:2)
As of yet here is no evidence that hard AI is even possible.
That's true, provided you define "hard AI" as "stuff that isn't possible".
At least that is a definition, and nobody has come up with a better one
that doesn't involve a ton of hand-waving.