Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
The current paradigm regarding AI vs. Human intelligence is based on a fundamental logical fallacy. That the human mind processes information like a machine, and the human mind is constrained by biology. That is, machines have the capacity to advance, but we do not.
Deep Blue's victory was amazing, although not resounding, and IBM refused a rematch, even going so far as to dismantle Deep Blue. Now do you seriously believe the next round wouldn't have been much closer? Do you really think the human player wouldn't have responded differently?
If you do not understand the Wikipedia article that I posted, you don't understand AI, or human intelligence, which is my point. We have forgotten exactly what we are comparing machines to. Dreyfus' point was that AI intelligence was purely calculation power, which is not the fundamental basis of human intelligence, which is far more socially spatial and instinctual. So according to Dreyfus, who has essentially destroyed the theoretical basis of AI, we are building machines that do not copy us, but that we strive to copy instead, which is completely pointless.
Ultimately, what lies at the bottom of all of this is the utopianism of the futurists, like Kurzweil, who against all evidence posit the future of humanity as a cyborg singularity.
This is anti-human, and is why I remain completely unimpressed with these largely wasteful demonstrations.
|
Again dude you're looking at this from entirely the wrong perspective to be critisizing it from.
IBM cleary didn't build a computer that replicates the human brain, that much is obvious by the way it answered some questions. So why then are people celebrating this acievement if IBM failed to replicate the human brain? Because that's not what they were trying to do.
What they were trying to do, and succeeded at, was to prove that it's possible to build a computer that people can interact with in a more natural way, and that the computer can draw conclusions from a VERY VAST database from that interaction with a very high degree of accuracy.
It's one thing to Google "Beatles Song" + "Don't make it bad" and get "Hey Jude" back as a response.
It's enitely another to tell a computer "Beatles people" "He won't make it bad" and have the computer figure out that you're asking for "Jude".
Belittling this accomplishment because you think there is some philosophical problem with humans trying to replicate our brains and thus trying to replicate the machines themselves is just silly. Moreover, dismissing this accomplishment because a human brain can't be replicated by a computer is equally as silly, because you obviously don't see or understand the potential that Watson has shown is achievable. To me, your comments are akin to someone telling the Wright brothers "Yeah, that machine is pretty good, but if God had intended us to fly, he'd have given us wings".