| To make a stab at the question posed by the title: We've known the principles of Newtonian physics since, well, Newton. We'll need an Isaac-Newton-level of insight into intelligence before we can make it so simple. Nevermind that we can't even seem to agree on the definition of intelligence. As to the definition, I have an objection to calling the current big-data stats we do nowadays "machine learning" or "artificial intelligence". There is no intelligence there. Rather, to allude to the article, I consider it more "machine muscle memory" or "artificial intuition". The algorithm can tell you, "I have a really good hunch about this based on the zillions of examples I've seen" but it can't derive underlying truths to reason about why. Perhaps we are recapitulating phylogeny when it comes to artificial neural systems? We have something like an autonomous nervous system, and a brainstem, but we need so much more to get to intelligence. |