[Falling3]

> Can a computer play chess? No. > They search through many permutation of board states and in a very dumb way merely select the decision path that leads to a winning one.

This is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. The objective was never to simulate a human playing chess.

[andrewprock]

The moving of the goal posts is being done by those who claim that chess algorithm are in any sense intelligent.

The same holds for artificial intelligence broadly. It is as far from intelligence as a can opener.

[TchoBeer]

At what point would you be willing to concede that an algorithm is actually intelligent? What would be required for that?

[andrewprock]

The definition of algorithm and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Maybe you are asking a different question?

"When will we discover an algorithm for intelligence?"

[richk449]

If we understand something, we can describe it with an algorithm.

If algorithms for intelligence are by definition impossible, then understanding intelligence is by definition impossible.

So if true intelligence is something beyond our current understanding of the world (beyond algorithmic description). To me, this feels like god in the gaps applied to intelligence.

[andrewprock]

Understanding does not imply computability. The halting problem is the classic example of this.

[klmadfejno]

If a lookup table can predict human decisions with high accuracy given access to its senses and feelings, then either a human is just another can opener or intelligence isn't real.

[mjburgess]

The objective was to build an intelligent machine. Games were chosen as they, in humans, require intelligence.

They thought that AI would come out of building systems that can replace humans: sure, but only insofar as you preserve the use of intelligence.

If you replace with a shortcut, you havent built an intelligent machine.

[klmadfejno]

The objective was to make a machine that could beat anybody at chess. Nobody on the Alpha Zero team believes Alpha Zero is an example of general AI. Teaching a system to understand a complex system is a necessary subcomponent of general intelligence.

[mjburgess]

> Teaching a system to understand a complex system is a necessary subcomponent of general intelligence.

This is my point. Weak AI is not a component of general AI. A chess game futhers the project zero amount.

General intelligence is a way of being embedded in an environment; is the mechanism of furnishing narrow intelligence with content.

It is not a formal challenge, it's at best an engineering one. And a bioengineering one, in my view.