The thing with pointing out "AI can't do X!" is that, if you keep refining X into something narrow and precise enough, you'll eventually cross a threshold where a realistic amount of engineering and training data make X possible.
-
-
No matter how stupid the student, they can always pass the exam if you give them a set of problems very similar to what they will be tested on (reduced task uncertainty), and if they're willing to spend countless hours studying them (more experience).
Show this thread -
What's hard is to improvise from little experience in the face of high uncertainty and novelty. That's what biological intelligence has evolved for. That's what current algorithms and models can't do at all.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Aristotle kind of nailed it in Poetics, part 3 section XXII. It's about seeing commonalities, crossing traditional categories to effect a deeper truth, on an almost intuitive basis. Don't think we'll be coding that anytime soon.pic.twitter.com/cRSeSc39CF
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
we are missing the point about the source of intelligence.. if source is just an issue of chemical reactions in the brain then I would agree that eventually with enough technical power we might be able to get there.. but if the source is beyond physical reality, then we will not
-
If it's beyond physical reality, it will have no effect on us.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If the operational unit is culture, we can already master broad tasks with little effort....
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.