[visarga]

We won't have true AI until AI stands on its own. Just as a bootstrapped compiler can compile itself, an AI should be capable to reinvent itself without outside help.

Until then, it's just a child-AI, dependent on human brains to be designed and optimized.

[kakarot]

But humans aren't even capable of that, and we are intelligent. It still takes a lifetime of learning and experience to create a functional human being, and many never get it right.

[anonymfus]

Yes, but until AI is better than humans at everything it will not be perceived as intelligent, because true intelligence will be redefined as one of the things AI still is not capable.

[visarga]

One person can't create himself, but people can "compile" other people into existence and teach them, all without the help of technology.

[geon]

That's a pretty arbitrary definition.

And how long time do you give it? The human race haven't solved that problem in some 20k+ years. If we build an AI today, would you wait that long to decide if it is "true"?

[leereeves]

If humans create an AI, but that AI can't create an AI, then humans are still smarter than that AI.

But someone else being smarter doesn't mean the AI isn't intelligent.

[ThomPete]

We don't even have true consciousness so why should we have true AI. Thats not how things work IMO.

[krashnburn200]

AI has alway struck me as an absurd nomenclature.

Inteligence is inteligence regardless of origin.

Might as well call us AI Accidental Inteligence.

I kinda like Engineered Inteligence.

[goldenkek]

You mean like a virus?

[visarga]

Self replication and self preservation are the essence of life and evolution. There is no primary purpose to a biological system other than self preservation and replication.

[goldenkek]

Dont forget that a computer program exists in the physical world. It is not unlikely for AI that understands self, to also want to preserve self.