Does anyone here thinks human intelligence is overrated and that it's just a matter of months until someone finds the right algorithm and just with a intel i7 and some GBytes of memory we can surpass human intelligence after running the algorithm for some months?
prove me wrong
No. People in this forum posses enough human intelligence to know that's not likely.
I'll prove you wrong in a few months. :)
prove me wrong
How can we? You haven't told us which side of the matter you're on.
But I seriously doubt that we will have human-comparable intelligence programmed on today's hardware in a matter of months.
Does anyone here thinks human intelligence is overrated and that it's just a matter of months until someone finds the right algorithm and just with a intel i7 and some GBytes of memory we can surpass human intelligence after running the algorithm for some months?
prove me wrong
And... why don't you prove you are right?
How deep is your knowledge of A.I.?
Where are your arguments to prove you are right??
Its not so simple to deal with Machine Learning and its not so simple to machine and actual public A.I. techniques to simulate human behavior even human intelligence....
There is a little thing called 'Context Dependency' that is not so simple to teach a computer to deal with...
So... we are awaiting for your arguments proving your 'thesis'....
Nope. Human intelligence is far superior than what any human will ever be able to replicate. I just realized that when thinking I can program artificial intelligence that behaves like humans.
I realized it when I was trying to do a task at work. I had to reorganize a shelf, but a lot of factors had to be noticed first. I had to infer some things, and I had to suppose.
The thing is, I could readjust my logic on the fly when new, unexpected things occurred. My sensory mechanisms interact with my logical operator to create a new plan.
So, what one would have to do is make a program that can debug itself without any help from a human. And then one would have to make that same program able to edit it's own program to make itself more efficient.
Not happening on even the latest processor 100 years from now.
As I mentioned in another post, try to find a computer that can calculate 1,000,000!
One more thing, that same program would have to be able to write a program to solve any problem you gave it, when your instructions are written in broken english with arabic as your first language.
Computers try to be perfect, but it is the imperfection of humans that gives us an advantage.
I don't find anything compelling in Tutorial Doctor's arguments. My own point of view is that computers are already better than humans at many tasks: arithmetic, finding primitives of functions (a.k.a. indefinite integrals), playing many board games like chess or checkers, making investment decisions, playing Jeopardy, etc. The list will just expand over time until there is nothing a human can do better than a computer. I don't know if "replicating" human intelligence is relevant at all, once computers are better at everything. In any case, it won't be a matter of months.
Ideas about code that can debug itself, or modify itself or similar things were very prominent in early attempts at AI (that's why Lisp was popular in the field). Those attempts failed miserably, probably because that line of thinking is completely misguided. Your introspection about how you reorganize a shelf is just not very insightful, that's all. You certainly didn't have to perform brain surgery on yourself to be able to finish the task, which is the analogous situation to code that debugs itself.
The central problem of AI is how to make decisions. A solution to this problem has existed for at least 50 years: The best decision is one that maximizes the expected value of a utility function. The devil is in the details, of course.
There have been several areas where AI has been successful recently: machine translation, visual object classification, self-driving cars... Most of those areas have seen enormous advances thanks to the availability of large amounts of data and the ability to process it using machine learning.
[EDIT: By the way, 1,000,000! only has about 5.5 million digits. I am sure it's not that hard to compute, but I don't know what point you were trying to make: Do you know of any human that can compute it?]
Some of the most advanced AI created by humankind is able to drive an automated motor vehicle according to human commands coming from a different planet at the amazing speed of almost 90 meters per hour, all without causing the 6-wheeled vehicle to topple or crash into larger obstacles. That's more than twice the maximum cruise speed of Helix aspersa.
The same AI is further able to abstain from moving for nearly one month without human intervention in case of a connection loss, keeping the vehicle reliably in one place (and in one piece).
So yeah, AI is impressive, but some humans will argue that they can do comparably. It may still take a few weeks before AI considerably outperforms the human.
By the way, 1,000,000! only has about 5.5 million digits. I am sure it's not that hard to compute, but I don't know what point you were trying to make: Do you know of any human that can compute it?
That's actually a good example for showing intelligence, though. A computer will certainly beat a human (or at least most humans) at computing numbers or at playing chess (which, too, is only computing numbers and maximizing a utility function).
A truly intelligent computer playing chess would offer a tough challenge, but would let the human win (and it would figure this out on its own!) because humans who keep losing against a computer program are likely to delete the program or smash the computer to pieces.
On the other hand, being told to compute 1,000,000!, a computer (assuming the human who built the program thought of including an arbitrary precision library!) would likely start working, and eventually, after a long time, find a solution or abort with an error.
A human would tell you right away: Wait, what? Fuck you, this is totally pointless! It's a really big number, OK? Do it yourself if you really want to know the exact value.
It's the difference between what you can do and what you will do because you immediately realize that it doesn't make any sense (or the insight that any 10k-digit number or any 1-million-digit number is exactly identical to any 5-million-digit number for all practical purposes).
What you will do or won't do doesn't even necessarily have to be logical at first sight (or at second sight, or at all) to be "intelligent".
Computers are not better than humans. Faster, yes, but they cannot, by themselves solve complex problems unknown to them. They cannot infer, nor adjust their code for completely new situations.
As I said, a computer would have to be able to upgrade it's information without help of a human, and it would have to be able to debug itself if it were to even be close to human intelligence.
It would have to be 100% autonomous and have 100% self automaton to start.
I am surprised anyone would even begin to compare computers to human intelligence.
As for chess, I beat the hardest level on Chessmaster simply by playing an imperfect game. All they do is load all this information about all the different patterns of opening game, middle game, and end game, and have the computer sort through them to play the most optimal move possible. But I haven't that knowledge, and I am not restrained to playing the most optimal move. So I played a move that wasn't expected, that wasn't "supposed" to be played. The game froze for a sec, and made a terrible move. I then took the computer's queen. Then it froze indefinitely.
Humans don't have glitches like that. And if we do get hung on something, we can go research it and use that information to upgrade our knowledge.
I'd also say that a human could calculate 1,000,000! before they can build a computer to do be able to do it without imploding.
Now, 1000! has around half a million digits.
