None of the five reasons is both true and relevant. But the conclusion sure is!
Brilliant analysis of AI by Kevin Kelly: Hyper-intelligent algorithms are not going to take over the worldhttps://www.wired.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai/ …
-
-
-
Re: number 2. We humans are not "generally" intelligent? Not even a single counter example? What, in principle, could we *never* learn?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
-
Good analogy but I think he's a journalist and not a scientist
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
AI will not take over the world, but this essay is weaker than Church-Turing, and silly about general intelligence. AI our most useful tool
-
The multifaceted view of g.is consistent with Process Overlap Theory, no?http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1153946?journalCode=hpli20 …
-
Whatever the processes,a broad range of people solving a broad range of problems always results in a large general factor. It replicates.
-
Yes, of course. I'm not denying g but a general factor does not necessarily imply a general process or a unitary source of variance.
-
Agreed. Unclear about how processes map onto output though
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
AI taking over human jobs doesn't require the AI to be general purpose or superhuman - merely good enough for the jobs its meant to do.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo -
-
Would he agree it's brilliant? He seems to deny intelligence exists.
-
A bacteria could have written something just as good and it's really only your bias that imagines this is super bacteria level writing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
So many flimsy assertions... I had a hard time staying motivated to read to the end.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo -
-
Article: "humans do not have general purpose minds". Yet humans dominate the world. So why would lack of general IQ stop machines from same?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
Stephen Hawking and Sam Harris are not experts in this field. #### 3 was not at all convincing. Throughout this article is sloppiness.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. Undo -
-
Isn't "multiple intelligence theory" (and specifically "emotional" intelligence) this piece heavily lays on a giant trash fire?
-
If memory serves, the experiments trying to show it failed.
-
ayup. Also I'm calling bullshit on squirreltelligence part. (grey) Squirrels forget a significant portion of their stashes.
-
It is far more likely that a squirrel learns a pattern of behavior for where it tend to store acorns I think.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.