Technology

59534 readers

3209 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

151

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“In 10 years, computers will be doing this a million times faster.” The head of Nvidia does not believe that there is a need to invest trillions of dollars in the production of chips for AI::Despite the fact that Nvidia is now almost the main beneficiary of the growing interest in AI, the head of the company, Jensen Huang, does not believe that

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Deep Blue and AlphaGo were AI, though?

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Sure, but in the context of the time, the narrative was that AI would never beat humans at chess. The assumption was you would have to encode all winning positions and that there were just too many positions possible for that to be the case.

And the narrative and assumptions were wrong. Turns out computer systems can actually not even know what the rules of chess are, learn them, and then learn to play better than any human can ever play.

Then the nay-sayers came up with a bunch of new qualifications about what "real" AI would be, because they made the wrong assumptions in the first place. The same things are happening right now in the current conversation around AI.

My point is that there has been historically substantial goal post moving around this domain, and the nay-sayers have been consistently demonstrated to be wrong. Its fun and trendy to be a naysayer. It makes you seem smarter than you are. But we've failed to come up with an even basic definition of 'intelligence' that is useful for informing debate, let alone a useful definition for what is or is not 'artificial intelligence'.

I think we'll have systems that are indistinguishable if not significantly better at most tasks than humans in 2-3 years. Either you wont be able to tell it wasn't done by a human, or you'll be able to tell simply because its so much better than what you would expect a human to be capable of. It will seem 'super human' in this regard. Likewise, I think we'll solve the agency problem as well, at least when looking in from the outside. I don't think you'll be able to tell a difference between a machine system or a human operating behind a digital screen, whatsoever, in 2-3 years.

What is intelligence? What makes some intelligence artificial? Does that divide even really make sense? The whole concept is predicated on the assumption that there is something particularly special about whatever it is that humans possess, and when I see people moving goalposts, it strikes me that they are mostly working to protect "whatever" it is that humans have as something special or divine.

Realistically, we're about to get passed on the track. And then, we're going to get lapped before the naysayers have even noticed we're not in the lead any more. Its an intentional blindspot.