Once more, folks are confusing AI with ultrafast computation, pattern matching and huge database searching, techniques that are easily done by digital computers and result in success at algorithmic or database searching 'games' where digital computers outperform human capabilities. The fundamental mistake is in defining intelligence as possesing such abilities, admitedly understandable because these attributes are uniquely displayed by the human species. Real world interaction with an environment is NOT readily done by digital computers and yet is easily done even by very simple life forms. The scientificly illiterate popular press can be excused for confusing these attributes, the scientificly atute layperson should be more discriminating. They are very different things.
When one makes factual points with examples that several decades of AI predictions have fallen short and still continue to do so, the rebuttal is indignation, ad hominem accusations of religious fervor, and vague hand waving about some indeterminate future.
The emerging possibility of enhancing human wetwear with integrated digital accessories (huge memory database search, ubiquitous communication, whatever) is a different although related topic.
Space/Science » in reply to Fruit fly is extraordinarily bad analogy for "intelligence"
re: Fruit fly is extraordinarily bad analogy for "intelligence"
The whole thread (38 posts)
- Quantum Mechanics Boondoggles, AI's Total Failure...The Notable Carver Mead Speaks
- That critique was so stupid, its an argument against (a particular) Human Intelligence, not a critique of Artificial Intelligence research
- Fruit fly is extraordinarily bad analogy for "intelligence"
- re: Quantum Mechanics Boondoggles, AI's Total Failure...The Notable Carver Mead Speaks
- Fruitflies, I am told, suck at chess.
- Nervous systems don't work like computers.
- Yeah, but...