Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

M0romete t1_j0beaht wrote

Reply to comment by beeen_there in Predictive Artificial Intelligence by Final-Cause9540

Yeah but you’d be wrong. It’s like saying everything in the universe is subatomic particles. While technically true, it’s misleading and leaves out a lot of details.

3

beeen_there t1_j0bgib8 wrote

what, like the techzealot misconception that statistics, math and a set of complicated instructions somehow = intelligence?

No point in arguing over semantics, but imho its obvious enough that human experience, wisdom, feel and emotion are essential to intelligence. And computers don't have those.

They can imitate intelligent output, but they are not intelligent.

−2

monsieuryuan t1_j0bjser wrote

>No point in arguing over semantics

Then proceeds to do exactly that.

It's called artificial intelligence because nobody coded those instructions. The model learned those on its own to exposure and experience just like living things. This is a huge departure from humans explicitly writing the instructions.

>human experience, wisdom, feel and emotion are essential to intelligence

Experience and wisdom are one and the same. So are feel and emotions. So your definition of intelligence boils down to experience and emotions.

Experience is exactly what these things use to learn.

Emotions. The AI models can learn to recognize those and output in consequence if that is their purpose. If you're talking about them feeling emotions on their own, then your defining intelligence as sentience, which AI totally has the potential to achieve.

5

beeen_there t1_j0boped wrote

> AI totally has the potential to achieve.

It really doesn't. But you're obviously in religous faith mode here, a techzealot. Otherwise you wouldn't try to claim experience and wisdom are one and the same, or feel and emotions are one and the same. That demonstrates a incredibly superficial understanding of all those.

An understanding very similar to AI or a bot. An impression of understanding.

−1

monsieuryuan t1_j0c7u6i wrote

Tell me then. That's the difference between experience and wisdom? What's the difference between feelings and emotions that's actually relevant in this discussion?

I'm not a tech zealot at all. I simply understand why they call it artificial intelligence', and it's quite justifiable as a monkier.

Edit: I love how you just call anyone who disagrees with you a tech zealot. And haven't made any substantive argument or demonstrated any in-field knowledge, but the latter would make one a tech zealot right?

6

beeen_there t1_j0ckc5u wrote

Not feelings, feel - different from emotion, if you're creative you'd know what that was. Do you? Paint or compose or write or cook or whatever?

Are you seriously asking me the difference between experience and wisdom? How about you start with a dictionary, then have a think, then come back if you still don't know.

I don't call anyone who disagrees with me a tech zealot, but there is this tech intensity in some people that is like religious fervour, and as such completely misses the main points.

−1

monsieuryuan t1_j0cs1bs wrote

I get what you mean by feel vs emotions now. Though it's of personal opinion how that's necessary to characterize something as being intelligent.

One can easily argue that wisdom is a consequence of acquiring experience. It's part of the decision making or 'instructions' as you put it. So in this sense, wisdom should be captured within experience in this context.

I don't have tech intensity. I don't believe tech will solve all, or believe in AI stuff like self-driving will be imminently achievable. I just understand why they give artificial intelligence that moniker - it learns its own instructions, instead of a human explicitly coding it., which is quite justifiable.

4

beeen_there t1_j0m7hd7 wrote

> I just understand why they give artificial intelligence that moniker

its called marketing

1