|
|
|
|
|
by 627467
2179 days ago
|
|
I'm not disagreeing with you but where's the frontier between "pattern matching" and "intelligence"? I also think human intelligence and creativity will always be judged by other humans as _better_, more genuine - as long as the judges can trust that given creation was lead by a human. Among creative types "derivative" is a derogatory label used frequently. "Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal" also has an implication that regardless of what else an artist/creator does: pattern matching is a big part of that process. |
|
An ant only has around 250,000 neurons, yet they're still more intelligent than the most advanced "AI" we've managed to produce.
An ant may not be able to paint a painting or write a novel, but I think most people agree they qualify as an intelligent being.